By Allie Friedman, Deputy Director Buffalo ReformED:
I listened to a broadcast on Tuesday, December 14, from the Capitol Press Room with Susan Arbetter and NYSUT President Dick Iannuzzi. Among topics discussed were charter schools, one which Arbetter, the host, called a "hot button issue." "It's like walking into a den of snakes," Arbetter joked. It is important to note up front that while Arbetter works to maintain an unbiased view of charter schools, NYSUT is one of the biggest sponsors of the Capitol Pressroom. Back in July, my colleague Katie Campos appeared on the Capitol Pressroom with Susan Arbetter to talk about charter schools. Listen here and judge for yourself if Arbetter is unfairly biased against charter schools and school reform.
In the recent broadcast, Arbetter asked Iannuzzi if he'd seen the movie Waiting for "Superman." He responded, "I haven't had to see it because I spend a great deal of time doing research about responses to it with my terrific leadership at the AFT, Randi Weingarten, and my leadership at NEA under Dennis Van Roekel."
Interesting. Imagine if a student told his teacher that he didn't have to read War and Peace because his classmates had already read it and their opinions counted as fact and were just as good as if he had read the book himself. Ianuzzi explained that he has spent a lot of time analyzing the movie, so he is "well aware of it." That is like the same student writing an essay on War on Peace using only Spark Notes.
Iannuzzi continued his commentary on Waiting for "Superman," expressing his opinion that although the movie is a "great piece of cinema, it is fictitious or half the story; it clearly leaves out anything about public schools which succeed in 95% of the situations." The film really must be a "great piece of cinema" if Iannuzzi didn't even have to see it to believe it. I wonder how simply analyzing something that a person hasn't actually watched, read, or listened to, can give that person the authority to make such bold statements?
Arbetter brought up Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo's legislative agenda, which includes charter school expansion. Iannuzzi responded, "The question isn't more charter schools; the question is how we open them, how we make them accountable, and more importantly the question is what do we do with the other 97% of public school students. If we don't concentrate on them we're making a mistake, so charter schools become a diversion from the larger picture; so I ask that the Governor be looking at the 97% and the 3%."
First of all, accountability is the very essence of charter schools. By nature, charter schools trade accountability for autonomy. If these schools don't perform, by law, they are SHUT DOWN. I don't think there is any way to make them more accountable than pairing operation with academic results. Second of all, what happened to the public schools that Iannuzzi says "succeed in 95% of the situations." Now we have 97% of public schools that are being left behind?
Arbetter continued to ask contentious questions about charter schools. "If you have engaged parents you're probably being read to anyway, already a step above the child who doesn't have engaged parents and doesn't put their name into a lottery. What I have heard traditional public school educators say is that the 'rest' remain to be educated, so you have the cream of the crop that is being lifted up and the rest are being left, basically to be educated at the school house gate?"
I'm not sure what Arbetter means by the "school house gate," but it seems that she believes that charter school parents are the only engaged parents that want to see their children succeed. So, now we have Iannuzzi's "public schools that succeed in 95% of the situations" with unengaged parents? I'm confused. I think it's unfair to assume that public school parents are unengaged. It's as simple as this: supply equals demand. There are thousands of children on wait lists for charter schools in New York State. Many of these children are still enrolled in the traditional system with engaged parents who want the best for their kids. And there are thousands of children in charter schools, children who once failed in the traditional system and are now flourishing in their new environments. Charter schools simply offer a choice for parents where parents previously had none.
Iannuzzi went on to criticize charter schools for their inability to educate special education and bilingual students. He blames charter schools for sending these children back to their district schools. However, by law, charter schools are prohibited from using the same tools that the traditional schools have access to which would help educate this particular group of students (BOCES programs, for example). Since charter schools do not have access to these resources, many parents who have special needs kids are leaving charters to go back to schools where programs are available. This is not a fault of charter schools. Give charter schools the same tools that the traditional schools are provided and strides can be made to solve these problems.
Lastly, Iannuzzi referenced the city of Albany, saying, "When you create a system with such a large percentage of students in charter schools, you drain a significant amount of dollars away from the public schools, making it impossible for them to meet the increased burden that they have for students with needs." Iannuzzi seems to forget that a third of the dollars that should come to charter school students remain in the district for students the district is no longer educating. That money supports teacher salaries, pensions, and all other costs associated with running a school. Clearly, the law protects traditional public schools. With a third less money, charter schools have to supply their own facilities and pay for their own transportation, costs that are reimbursable to district schools.
I have spent a lot of time in the Western New York charter schools (17). I've had the pleasure of seeing engaging classrooms, exciting teachers, and enthusiastic families. I've also spent time talking with charter school students about their lives. I've heard heartbreaking stories of homicide, prison, poverty and abandonment. The "us versus them" debate has blinded us so much that we seem to forget who we're fighting for in the first place. The children in charter schools and district schools are the same kids. They all deserve a quality education and our efforts to make it happen. I hope Mr. Iannuzzi will make a commitment to spending more time in charter schools (many of which include his unionized members), than he did watching Waiting for "Superman."
View image
I listened to a broadcast on Tuesday, December 14, from the Capitol Press Room with Susan Arbetter and NYSUT President Dick Iannuzzi. Among topics discussed were charter schools, one which Arbetter, the host, called a "hot button issue." "It's like walking into a den of snakes," Arbetter joked. It is important to note up front that while Arbetter works to maintain an unbiased view of charter schools, NYSUT is one of the biggest sponsors of the Capitol Pressroom. Back in July, my colleague Katie Campos appeared on the Capitol Pressroom with Susan Arbetter to talk about charter schools. Listen here and judge for yourself if Arbetter is unfairly biased against charter schools and school reform.
In the recent broadcast, Arbetter asked Iannuzzi if he'd seen the movie Waiting for "Superman." He responded, "I haven't had to see it because I spend a great deal of time doing research about responses to it with my terrific leadership at the AFT, Randi Weingarten, and my leadership at NEA under Dennis Van Roekel."
Interesting. Imagine if a student told his teacher that he didn't have to read War and Peace because his classmates had already read it and their opinions counted as fact and were just as good as if he had read the book himself. Ianuzzi explained that he has spent a lot of time analyzing the movie, so he is "well aware of it." That is like the same student writing an essay on War on Peace using only Spark Notes.
Iannuzzi continued his commentary on Waiting for "Superman," expressing his opinion that although the movie is a "great piece of cinema, it is fictitious or half the story; it clearly leaves out anything about public schools which succeed in 95% of the situations." The film really must be a "great piece of cinema" if Iannuzzi didn't even have to see it to believe it. I wonder how simply analyzing something that a person hasn't actually watched, read, or listened to, can give that person the authority to make such bold statements?
Arbetter brought up Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo's legislative agenda, which includes charter school expansion. Iannuzzi responded, "The question isn't more charter schools; the question is how we open them, how we make them accountable, and more importantly the question is what do we do with the other 97% of public school students. If we don't concentrate on them we're making a mistake, so charter schools become a diversion from the larger picture; so I ask that the Governor be looking at the 97% and the 3%."
First of all, accountability is the very essence of charter schools. By nature, charter schools trade accountability for autonomy. If these schools don't perform, by law, they are SHUT DOWN. I don't think there is any way to make them more accountable than pairing operation with academic results. Second of all, what happened to the public schools that Iannuzzi says "succeed in 95% of the situations." Now we have 97% of public schools that are being left behind?
Arbetter continued to ask contentious questions about charter schools. "If you have engaged parents you're probably being read to anyway, already a step above the child who doesn't have engaged parents and doesn't put their name into a lottery. What I have heard traditional public school educators say is that the 'rest' remain to be educated, so you have the cream of the crop that is being lifted up and the rest are being left, basically to be educated at the school house gate?"
I'm not sure what Arbetter means by the "school house gate," but it seems that she believes that charter school parents are the only engaged parents that want to see their children succeed. So, now we have Iannuzzi's "public schools that succeed in 95% of the situations" with unengaged parents? I'm confused. I think it's unfair to assume that public school parents are unengaged. It's as simple as this: supply equals demand. There are thousands of children on wait lists for charter schools in New York State. Many of these children are still enrolled in the traditional system with engaged parents who want the best for their kids. And there are thousands of children in charter schools, children who once failed in the traditional system and are now flourishing in their new environments. Charter schools simply offer a choice for parents where parents previously had none.
Iannuzzi went on to criticize charter schools for their inability to educate special education and bilingual students. He blames charter schools for sending these children back to their district schools. However, by law, charter schools are prohibited from using the same tools that the traditional schools have access to which would help educate this particular group of students (BOCES programs, for example). Since charter schools do not have access to these resources, many parents who have special needs kids are leaving charters to go back to schools where programs are available. This is not a fault of charter schools. Give charter schools the same tools that the traditional schools are provided and strides can be made to solve these problems.
Lastly, Iannuzzi referenced the city of Albany, saying, "When you create a system with such a large percentage of students in charter schools, you drain a significant amount of dollars away from the public schools, making it impossible for them to meet the increased burden that they have for students with needs." Iannuzzi seems to forget that a third of the dollars that should come to charter school students remain in the district for students the district is no longer educating. That money supports teacher salaries, pensions, and all other costs associated with running a school. Clearly, the law protects traditional public schools. With a third less money, charter schools have to supply their own facilities and pay for their own transportation, costs that are reimbursable to district schools.
I have spent a lot of time in the Western New York charter schools (17). I've had the pleasure of seeing engaging classrooms, exciting teachers, and enthusiastic families. I've also spent time talking with charter school students about their lives. I've heard heartbreaking stories of homicide, prison, poverty and abandonment. The "us versus them" debate has blinded us so much that we seem to forget who we're fighting for in the first place. The children in charter schools and district schools are the same kids. They all deserve a quality education and our efforts to make it happen. I hope Mr. Iannuzzi will make a commitment to spending more time in charter schools (many of which include his unionized members), than he did watching Waiting for "Superman."
I've checked out the RefjormEd website and I have one question: What educatiional experience, other than attending school, do any of you have? You're kinda like Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, Kitty Black, Carl, etc.. (Working for Sam doesn't qualify as experience.) I don't want corporations running my schools. I want educators in control, not businessmen or ladies in waiting. Can BRO stop pushing this obscene agenda?
While I would agree that the article may have strayed from its intent, lets be wary of tagging something as an "obscene agenda" when it does not fit with more a traditional perspective of how education should work.
Prior to his current role, Arne Duncan oversaw numerous successes in managing Chicago's public system, despite his "business man" demeanor. Michelle Rhee was tremendously successful in managing the Washington D.C. district, but was recently removed from her position for promoting an "obscene" agenda that challenged the status quo.
Charter schools by default cannot be the only solution. It is simply not practical given the size of the problem. However, they can be an important part of a wider solution, and merit further study. Dismissing this as "obscene" does little to improve our current state, in which the US education system significantly underperforms in comparison to its peers.
Neither Duncan or Rhee are sucess stories. Chicago schools are a disaster as a result of the Daley machine. Rhee was self proclaimed lousy teacher, yet a great self promoter. If she was such an advocate for the kids of Washington she would have stayed and finished her job.
Michelle Rhee was forced out of her role in Washington D.C. and therefore could not continue her efforts. Please review the following article from the Washington Post that recognizes the improvements made in the school district and provides an understanding of the political circumstance of her dismissal. While the educational improvements are undoubtedly not solely a result of her action, we cannot deny that there was in fact improvement in the district. We must also note that her efforts have not entirely been a success, and learn from her experience.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081806726.html
As for Duncan Arne, while I agree that the "Daley machine" has made educational improvement difficult in Chicago over the past 20 years, we cannot presume that his policy was a "disaster" because he did not markedly improve the school system. In fact, the jury is very much still out on his performance, with some pluses and many minuses. It is important to note that I evaluate his tenure based on performance, not on anecdotal extremes. Please review the following for a synopsis on his efforts:
http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/193
Rather than make unfounded claims based on anecdotal evidence, I would recommend leveraging what I presume is your American education to create a more compelling argument. Ultimately, this discussion is not about who is right or wrong, but truly about searching for viable solutions to a challenging problem. Please review the following article to see how a large public school in Massachusetts has significantly improved its performance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/education/28school.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=brockton&st=cse
Once again, we should look at all of these as examples for us to consider rather than dismiss one or the other based on sentiment or bias.
You say "I've checked out the RefjormEd website and I have one question: What educatiional experience, other than attending school, do any of you have?"
Who is to say that having experience working in the educational system is what provides the background to making positive change? Perhaps the education system needs people with a fresh take. The fact that any parent in Buffalo would resist that work that BuffaloReformEd is doing (which is a non-profit, NOT a corporation) is appalling to me. All we know is that the current education system is not working, so if it takes people outside of the system to get some change enacted, I am all for it.
Additionally, instead of unnecessarily focusing on the pedigree of the people behind BuffaloReformEd, study the mission statement of the organization: "Buffalo ReformED will make WNY a hub of world-class education by providing every child, regardless of race, ethnicity, or zip code, the highest quality education and the most effective teachers." And at the very least realize that BuffaloReformEd has been essential in creating the dialogue that is rising in Buffalo right now about how to fix the school system.