And here’s Ravitch with her even more deranged reply:

I understand why you were taken aback by that article in the "Style" section of The New York Times last week that described how charter schools have become a must-have among hedge-fund managers, billionaires, and other members of the social elite in New York City. The article bothered me, too. In fact, the more I think about it, the more it worries me. Having written the history of the New York City public schools, I was reminded of the origins of free schooling in certain northeastern cities in the early 19th Century, when wealthy men decided that it was their civic duty to help civilize the children of the poor. In their view and in their day, they were doing good deeds, but their schools were stigmatized as charity schools for children of paupers and were avoided by children of the middle class. Outside of big cities, public education emerged as a community response to a community's need to school its children, not as a charitable venture.

Today, with the proliferation of charter schools, we may be seeing a resurgence of the historic pattern as public schools are privatized and taken over by very rich men (and women) who see themselves as saviors of the children of the poor. Naturally, you find this a repellent portrait because it undermines the democratic foundations of public education. It means that our society will increasingly rely on the good will of wealthy patrons to educate children of color. It means that education is seen as a private charity rather than as a public responsibility. Let's hope that the new owners who have taken over these schools are able to sustain their interest. After all, having 500 children in your care is not the same as having a stable of polo ponies or a vineyard in Napa Valley. If the children don't produce results that make the sponsors proud, they may pick a different hobby.

 

I wish I had time to rip apart these two blog posts line by line, but I don't, so I'll let Catharine Bellinger of Students for Education Reform (http://edreform.blogspot.com/2009/12/students-for-education-reform.html) take a shot (her comments are in red), plus I've included some other comments on charters below:

 

1. Today, with the proliferation of charter schools, we may be seeing a resurgence of the historic pattern as public schools are privatized and taken over by very rich men (and women) who see themselves as saviors of the children of the poor. Naturally, you find this a repellent portrait because it undermines the democratic foundations of public education...After all, having 500 children in your care is not the same as having a stable of polo ponies or a vineyard in Napa Valley.

 

What is she talking about? Has she EVER met some of the people involved with supporting high-quality public charter schools? Just about all of these schools represent a collaboration between parents, teachers, and donors--not some oppressive system in which "very rich men" foist their values onto unwilling children. And since when was it NOT admirable for people privileged with money to spare to donate to organizations that have proven that they are spending the money wisely and effectively? Does she want you to pour your money down the drain and donate it to the teacher's unions, like the Ford Foundation did? Finally, note how Ravitch is much more interested in the political theory of education--maintaining what some sort of idealized version of "democratic" education--than in what actually works for students. She accuses Klein of ignoring policy decisions' impact on students, but really she is guilty of it herself.

 

2. In the past few days, Chancellor Joel Klein has announced that he is closing nearly two dozen public schools. Some of these schools are the anchor in their communities; some have long histories as gateways for immigrant children....most could have been improved by a thoughtful plan of action, including smaller classes, better supervision, and the kinds of resources that hedge-fund managers pour into "their" charter schools. 

 

Oh Diane...have you visited Paul Robeson High School, one of the schools that Klein announced he is going to shut down? My Breakout trip (the same group that visited you in New York) conducted college awareness workshops there for a week. First of all, Robeson certainly was not the "anchor" in its community, the Bed-Stuy neighborhood in Brooklyn--or if it was, it was merely an anchor of failure. It wasn't RESOURCES that Robeson needed, with its 40% graduation rate and only a little more than half of the students stating that they were inspired to learn. The participants on my trip cited a terrible school environment, a culture of apathy and incompetence, and students who wanted to go to college but had never been informed that they needed to take certain classes or certain exams. Even their "honors" students had never heard of SAT II subject tests. This school didn't need more money. It needed serious restructuring, and I'm confident that closing Robeson and opening new schools and giving students new opportunities will be beneficial to student achievement. It needed to follow the "habits of high performing urban schools" listed in Sweating the Small Stuff (attached). That couldn't happen with the same staff, unfortunately. Ravitch complains that closing schools "disrupts" students--true, but this is a case when you have to choose the hard right over the easy wrong. It might be hard to send all those students elsewhere, but otherwise you are just letting a culture of apathy and low expectations persist.