A member of the Great Schools in Wake Coalition is quoted in a article critical of school choice.
In an article originally published by Alternet, a liberal online newsmagazine, GSIW member Karey Harwood charges that school choice supporters are out to create a "divided society of winners and losers." The article, originally titled "5 Biggest Lies About the Right-Wing Corporate-Backed War on Our Schools" was reposted Tuesday by Salon.com for National School Choice Week.
"When they talk about choice, whose choices are they referring to?" Harwood says in the article. "Are the children of people who are savvy enough to get out of the public schools the only children who are worth educating in our society? What happens to the children who don’t get out?
It seems the [people behind School Choice Week] knowingly embrace the idea of creating a second tier of schools for those American citizens who don’t or can’t ‘choose’ – and they are perfectly okay with a divided society of winners and losers.”
The article describe Harwood, an ethics professor at N.C. State, as a "public school advocate."
"She is an activist with Great Schools in Wake, an organization that formed in 2009 to oppose a school choice platform pushed by a newly elected right-wing school board in Wake County, North Carolina," according to the article written by Kristin Rawls. "The state chapter of the NAACP has also opposed school choice, arguing that it will lead to the re-segregation of schools in Raleigh, North Carolina and its surrounding suburbs."
The article includes several other quotes from Harwood.
“One of the most problematic aspects [of it] is the idea of ‘choice’ itself," Harwood says in the article. "What the [people behind School Choice Week] seem to be saying…is that, rather than strengthen a weakened public school system because we believe in public schools as the foundation of a democratic society, the solution is to abandon public schools altogether, let them deteriorate, and replace them with alternative private schools and charter schools that can claim they cater to every possible parental preference.”
Harwood also apparently takes shots at conservatives Art Pope and the Koch Brothers, whom the article says "are promoting the privatization of education as a way of shoring up profits for themselves and other large corporations."
The article quotes Harwood as saying that applying this business model to education results in a system that “pits schools against each other in a competitive market…, [and] that’s really not the best way to go about improving school quality. In fact, it’s very counterproductive.”
“School choice is not the panacea that [its supporters are] making it out to be," Harwood is also quoted as saying in the article. "There is plenty of room for creativity and innovation within public schools. There should be plenty of motivation to strive for excellence. To rely always on this free market ideology as the solution to problems in the public schools [signals] a very limited way of thinking.
When students are healthy and well-fed and schools are well-resourced, the results in American schools are excellent. Poverty and extreme social inequality are the real” barriers to adequate education. And as all of my sources confirm, school choice is an unsuitable one-size-fits-all solution that often marginalizes poor children and children of color rather than fixing their schools."
Comments
THe utter hypocrisy and
Sat, 01/28/2012 - 18:49 — jiancoTHe utter hypocrisy and ignorance of the elites who claim to be protecting public education is laughable if it were not so tragic. The growing legacy and trail of victims of our failed public schools is the issue, NOT SCHOOL CHOICE. Who ran and still run these failed public schools? THe government and the elites like Karey Harwood. Name one thing the government does well besides wasting money....please if you can.
So Karey Harwood and her friends destroy public education over the last 50 years, and then they seek to destroy anyone that challenges their mess.
It is a wonder these folks get paid to do anything at all, since they know nothing at all.
They Will Come Around...
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 14:33 — KevPerdueGSIW is still in the denial stage, but they will come around. We aren't going back so they either need to get on board or move!
This is an irrelevant group
Sun, 01/29/2012 - 18:54 — RevOfTruthShe's irrelevant and her opinion matters to no one except their little group of haters. I'm with you, if they can't cope move.
That's what many will be doing in the coming months when they don't get their choice(s) of schools. She can probably hitch a ride in the U-Haul trucks leaving town if she wants.
Rather odd that she would
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 13:14 — DrActualFactualRather odd that she would blame the move to the controlled-choice assignment method on right-wingers when it was suggested by Raleigh's Mayor Meeker while he was still in office (Dem.) He endorsed it's use to Raleigh COC (mixed Dem/Rep business group and Wake Ed. Partnership (liberal (IMHO) group pushed for it. Also, didn't Dr. Richard Kahlenberg (fellow-TCF Washington, DC liberal think tank group) jump on board to support this assignment scheme for Wake. It is one thing to not like a plan but quite another to rewrite the facts of how we got to that point. Meeker didn't like where we were headed with JT's strictly neighborhood assignment plan so he pushed for something different. All the other stakeholders (NAACP, GSIW, CCCAAP, etc.) screamed for something different from the first plan-- so the powers that be compromised and got us to what we have today. If you review the list again--mostly left-wing groups from my viewpoint. No one in power has been shoring up the schools as we go along for decades. The Gill board said all was good--we had no bad schools and would trot out Gerald Grant for his book ..No Bad Schools in Raleigh.." (notice that title doesn't say Wake County). Every resident in Wake needs to rise up to the challenge of making our schools good (each and every one) thru volunteerism and money; only then will our schools become truly desirable and effective to all students.
I agree. This isn't the
Sat, 01/28/2012 - 00:41 — jenmanI agree. This isn't the "right wing board's" plan. This is the Chamber's plan and they are pushing it hard.
I thought even Obama, the
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 13:52 — shearertwI thought even Obama, the leader of land of the not so free but taken care of with other people's money, was in favor of school choice by way of charter schools?
One only needs to look at the success of the totally reformed New Orleans school system to see the value of charters and school choice. The general consensus from that "experiment" is that the poor are the ones that benefit the most.
There is NO school assignment policy that will help children who have parents that don't care, are uninvolved, etc. Diluting those children throughout the school system only hides them, it doesn't help them.
...
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 12:55 — SideburnsKarey Harwood? The wife of Swain Wood, the attorney that sued WCPSS over the Open Meetings law?
Poppycock and more poppycock
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 11:49 — Bob_SconceFrom the salon article:
Rogers notes that she devoted 12 hours per week for six months to investigating her children’s options,
Poppycock -- that's 312 hours. Either Ms. Rogers is a horribly slow learner or a liar. Considering that she may have had, what, 4 more options than she had in the past, this means that she spent 78 hours investigating each option -- about 2 solid weeks worth or work! What did she do -- interview each teacher at each school?
Harwood has seen this happen firsthand in North Carolina, where wealthy conservatives like Art Pope and the Koch brothers are promoting the privatization of education as a way of shoring up profits for themselves and other large corporations.
Poppycock again! First of all, she's conflating the district's school choice plan with magnets and private schools. Secondly, all NC magnet schools, by law, are non-profit: there's no way for Art Pope to make money off them, even if he wanted to. (And, Pope seems to have no interest in doing so.) Thirdly, even private schools are all generally non-profit as well. (I said 'generally' because while there's no law requiring them to be non-profit, I'm not aware of any that are for-profit.)
[Rogers] says many parents are overwhelmed with complicated school application forms
Even more Poppycock! The "application" form is an on-line system where you say "choice 1, choice 2, choice 3, choice 4." That's IT. No "Please enter your passport number and give pi to the 15th digit."
There is a way...
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 17:23 — nriemannI think you make some good points in your post, but Karey makes some good points about the limits of choice and choice plans too.
While I have no opinion about whether Art Pope or the Koch brothers are actually doing this, there is certainly a way to make money off charter schools (I assume you meant charters rather than magnets?), and some are certainly using it. Nonprofit charter schools can pay for-profit management companies (EMOs) to run their schools. As others have pointed out, such applications have already been put foward in this state. See, e.g.,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75872194/North-Carolina-Virtual-Academy-Charter-Application-FINAL-11-1-11
I would not rule out the possibility that a for-profit management company could provide a service that was worth the profit it was taking, but insofar as their primary goal is maximizing profit for their owners, schools run by them warrant close scrutiny.
WEll, yeah...
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 17:52 — Bob_SconceOk, so that's a special case for a "Virtual School" -- if you think that virtual schools are a good idea (and I'm skeptical), then you definitely need an entity with some good technical know-how to be able to do it. I do hope that the State gives this application a very thorough vetting.
You know the problems with private benefit and 501(c)(3)s. I don't see much difference between hiring this outside organization and hiring your own people to do the same thing -- both earn a "profit," although with people, we call that a 'salary.' In my brief read through the application, it seems clear that the Board retains authority.** And, as I've pointed out elsewhere, there's always money to be made in public education. Prentice Hall and the Bluebird bus company are prime examples.
She may make some good points, but they're buried in something that reads like an election-year rant, complete with over-the-top political spin, rather than a thought-out, realistic, and well-supported discussion of the issues.
[**There is a tension between the board having authority and how the company gets paid -- basically, they get a portion of the left-over money. Don't know how well that's going to fly either with the IRS or the DPI. I'd rather see them get a set amount of cash for set services.]
I believe there is a difference
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 18:31 — nriemannIn this case, a middleman has inserted himself and is taking money in a less transparent way than the employee takes a salary.
I don't think K12's cut is limited to "a portion of the left-over money." It appears to be making money several different ways, no one of which appears to be large. But in the aggregate, that company did awfully well in 2011, and its CEO made $5 million. And while the particular example involves a virtual school, for-profit management companies manage brick and mortar charters also.
So there is in fact a way for an entreprenurial spirit to make a large profit from encouraging the growth of charter schools. Might be okay if there's a large ROI on the public's investment, but I'm personally skeptical about that.
Well...
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 19:20 — Bob_SconceOk. I didn't read through the entire contract -- the part about 25% of the first $100K, 50% of the next and 75% of the rest just stuck out to me.
Since I work with entrepreneurs, I don't really have a problem with their taking a profit. As far as ROI goes, I don't know why it matters how the school organizes itsellf internally, whether it uses an outside management firm, does it itself, or outsources the job to a roving band of gypsy vampires. The key question is whether the kids are learning. [I do note that the payments to K12 would show up on the school's form 990.]
Normally, at this point, I'd also say "And, if kids aren't learning, then the school will close by itself due to lack of interest." After all, if a charter school only attracts 20 students, it would have to shut down. But, I don't think that really applies in the virtual school case since their system should scale pretty well from a handful of students up to thousands. A virtual charter school of this type may be able to survive with 20 students.
I admit that it's possible for for-profit companies to make money by helping to manage charter schools. However, I don't know why that's bad, and, even if it were, I don't believe that Art Pope is involved that business -- he makes his money in retail.
They don't close by themselves...
Sun, 01/29/2012 - 10:53 — nriemannI would measure ROI by academic growth, as best we can measure it. This might be a challenge in areas like the performing arts.
I believe it would be a trivial matter to show that a very low percentage of low growth schools--conventionally public, charter, private, or home--ever close or change because "the kids aren't learning" and that folks rarely choose a school for academic growth. Often they lack the necessary growth data even to make such a choice. Über choicers would say that folks should be able to choose based on whatever criteria they like and take our public money with them in so doing. I agree with the first part but not the second. This is largely a matter of first principles on which we may not agree.
So..
Sun, 01/29/2012 - 20:01 — Bob_SconceÜber choicers would say that folks should be able to choose based on whatever criteria they like and take our public money with them in so doing. I agree with the first part but not the second. This is largely a matter of first principles on which we may not agree.
Well, I agree that "whatever criteria" is too loose. But, measuring by 'academic growth' may be problematic -- what does that even mean? Clearly, if they're not learning anything, then the school is just a fraud and, of course, shouldn't get any money and probably shouldn't even count as a 'school' period. Note though, if that school is a public school, it stays open and continues to fail students year after year.
The bigger question, though, is this: there's a huge range above that baseline -- whose job is it to decide "this isn't good enough to receive public money"? In my view, that's a decision that is generally best left to parents -- if the school is good enough for their kids, then, I think they probably know enough. There's probably a role for the state in there to guarantee some minimum standard, but it should be a small role and it should be based on universal and objective criteria (i.e. NOT on the NC SCOS/EOGs/EOCs, which IMO are abominations).
As to the percentage of low-growth schools that close, I'd be interested to see how many of the low-growth schools are charter or private schools and how many are public. If we want to take money (and students) away from low-growth private and charter schools, we should similarly take them away from low-growth public schools.
She does realize this is the board she elected
Fri, 01/27/2012 - 13:34 — FSandYOUdoesn't she? If she has a problem with it she needs to blame The Evans & Martin Fibb Show. They could have stopped this plan. The Martin & Evans Fibb Show chose not to.
As for her being a slow learner or a liar, well, as a member of GSWISIWSWIIGG she does support The Martin & Evans Fibb Show. Too bad that's not working out for her.