“President Obama supports quality charter schools” by Secretary Arne Duncan Dept. Ed

[jody]

President Obama supports quality charter schools

May 03, 2010, 5:30AM

I want to clear up confusion regarding President Barack Obama administration's position on charter schools, in the wake of the defeat of a proposed charter school bill in the Alabama Legislature.

For the record, we support high-quality charter schools. The president has encouraged states to lift caps on charters so innovative school models can flourish. Our proposed 2011 budget also boosts funding for charters and other innovative school models. Lastly, the Race to the Top competition explicitly provides 40 points for having a robust charter law with strong accountability provisions.

We believe charter schools can play a strong and significant role in improving education and offering high-quality options in underserved communities. We also believe they should be held accountable to the same standards as other schools.

Arne Duncan
Secretary, U.S. Department of Education
Washington, D.C.

[rfranklin]

1. Horseshit! This the subprime crisis for public schools...

Corporatization of the public schools system. It's already corrupt, but like the subprime mortgages and CDS's it will go on as long as possible to enrich the few, impoverish the parents and students, and then, when it all explodes, the cheerleaders and enablers will say, "we knew nothing."

[DJ13]

2. +1

[Supersedeas]

4. but, but, but....Arne has 40 bonus points for commercialization of schools

and that's not counting the big big big dollars paid to corporate innovators in Standardized Testing

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. -1. The vast majority of charter schools are non-profit.

Your post is horseshit.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LWolf]

78. + 1,000,000

[ClarkUSA]

3. Why can't the administration support both good charter AND public schools? In my town, both exist.

Not sure why there's this constant outrage by some here against charter schools. In most urban and suburban areas that I know of, both types of schools exist.

[Greyskye]

10. Exactly. Thank you.

We have some excellent non-profit public charter schools in our local districts. The one I'm most familiar with gets better test scores on the STAR tests than similar nearby public non-charter schools. Exact same student demographics. For less public school money.

[ClarkUSA]

15. You just offered a good anecdotal example of a quality charter school.

In my town, there are good private schools galore, fine charter schools, and very highly-rated public schools as well, so I'm curious as to why there is a pronounced and vitriolic bias by some DUers against the concept of charter schools when the aim should be the best education for kids, no matter what type of school they attend.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. They do.

And by the way, charters ARE public schools.

[ClarkUSA]

36. Thanks. I was asking a rhetorical question to the OP & the charter school critics in general

:hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. My apologies, I misunderstood. (nt)

[ClarkUSA]

44. No problem.

I greatly appreciate your informed contributions on this thread and any thread. :)

[BrklynLiberal]

5. To repeat myself..I want an EXACT definition of "high quality".

[CTyankee]

6. I think that means the ones that aren't failing miserably...and worse than any public school.

That Stanford study has made its impact and Obama is too damn smart to get caught in THAT crap!

[BrklynLiberal]

7. So, then...their definition of high quality means ones that are "succeeding"...

Let's see..what is the name for that kind of logic?
oh yes.....

Wikipedia...
Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. Begging the question is related to circular argument, circulus in probando (Latin for "circle in proving") or circular reasoning but they are considered absolutely different by Aristotle.[

[ClarkUSA]

12. The Obama administration wants to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak...

Support High-Quality Schools and Close Low-Performing Charter Schools: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will double funding for the Federal Charter School Program to support the creation of more successful charter schools. The Obama-Biden administration will provide this expanded charter school funding only to states that improve accountability for charter schools, allow for interventions in struggling charter schools and have a clear process for closing down chronically underperforming charter schools. Obama and Biden will also prioritize supporting states that help the most successful charter schools to expand to serve more students.

http://change.gov/agenda/education_agenda/

[CTyankee]

16. It will be proved in its resolution. I doubt very seriously if Obama is taking a flying leap

by saying what he said. It is obvious, given the Stanford study. We must take into consideration all things, non e vero? Excuse the Italian, at this point it is better than my Latin or my French, both of which, by the way, I had studied...thanks for playing...

[ljm2002]

8. But does he support quality public schools?

That is really the question.

[ClarkUSA]

9. Of course he does. Where do you think $100B of Obama's stimulus package has gone/is going to?

"The $100 billion in education monies in the economic-stimulus package aims to stem huge cuts by states, fund programs for special education, low-income students, and early-childhood initiatives, and provide incentive to everyone, from teachers to state officials, to think in terms of reform."
http://www.edutopia.org/economic-stimulus-education-school-budget

When is the last time a U.S. president invested this much in the education system? I don't recall any President in my lifetime doing so. Of course, President Obama wants to improve schooling on many levels instead of maintaining the status-quo: http://change.gov/agenda/education_agenda/

[ljm2002]

17. Granted there is stimulus money going to schools...

...on the other hand, I cannot think of a time when a sitting President actually made public comments congratulating a school district for firing all the teachers and administrators in a "failing" school -- particularly since the "failure" was in math, and yet at the same time there was a charter school in the same state with WORSE math scores, yet it was being praised.

Sorry, the education agenda of this administration is suspect to me. Of course they aren't just going to suddenly remove all funding from public schools, and of course it's a good thing that stimulus funds have gone to schools. But from the policy perspective, it sure looks to me like he is pushing for charters, and from where I sit it looks like the charter school movement amounts to stealth privatization.

[w4rma]

26. A huge portion of that money is to be used to change public schools into billionare owned private

schools.

[stevenleser]

87. LOL

You forgot the sarcasm tag. You almost had me thinking you were serious!

[MadHound]

27. That stimulus money was gone last year,

And now states and school districts are hurting for money for education. Virtually every school district is cutting funding, and we could certainly use another boost from a federal education stimulus.

But that's not going to happen, instead he's got RTTT money that pits one state against the other in a race to prove just how ready they are to abandon public education and embrace privatized education.

[Radical Activist]

19. You know many of those charters WILL be public schools, right?

The ones in Chicago are.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. The vast majority of charters are public schools.

I don't know where this myth originated from in the first place. Less than 10% of charters are for-profit, and charters don't even make up a significant portion of public schools as a whole.

[Dinger]

41. hat Answer Is Obvious: NO!!!!

Fuck arne

[MichiganVote]

11. HA! High standards? What a crock. Takes a government that acts itself as though

it has "high standards" to understand them in the first place.

[freddie mertz]

13. Gag me with a spoon.

And we don't yet if drilling offshore is safe.

Orwellian.

[thereismore]

14. Fuck charter schools. nt

[Radical Activist]

18. So you can't paint all charter schools with the same brush?

I'm sure some people will never wrap their head around that one.

[ipaint]

20. Well if that was true Duncan wouldn't be working for him. nt

[amborin]

21. "quality charter schools" the majority are inferior to public schools, say Stanford U analyses

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Cite it. (nt)

[amborin]

35. no, you go look it up yourself; was front page sunday nytimes and many other places

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. You might have missed this part:

What most experts can agree on is that charter school quality varies widely, and that it is often associated with the rigor of authorities that grant charters. New York, where oversight is strong, is known for higher performing schools. Ohio, Arizona and Texas, where accountability is minimal, showed up in Ms. Raymond’s study with many poorly performing schools.

Perhaps the sharpest knock on charters — one that even some proponents acknowledge — is that mediocrity is widely tolerated. Authorities are reluctant to close poor schools."

Obama and charter school advocates argue for stricter accountability on the part of charter authorizors. "Charter authorizers need to do a better job of holding schools accountable" - Arne Duncan, June 2009. Very few that advocate for charter schools would argue that the authorizers need to do their part and close schools that are failing, as they do in New York, Washington DC, and New Orleans.

[amborin]

38. you missed the part with the numbers; bottom line: parents swallow the advertising by charter schls

and are duped into thinking they're superior; they're not

why are "Dems" so eager to abandon our public school system? the best and brightest have passed through our outstanding public schools....that's part of what democracy is about: public schools

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. Once again, charters ARE public schools.

Secondly, they don't advertise them as "superior", they advertise them as an alternative to schools that are either unsafe or are not suitable for specific children. Thirdly, this is why we need to reform: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/8/39700724.pdf

[amborin]

75. many are run by for-profit corporations; and they are exempt from rules, regs, etc. governing trad

public schools; they're public nominally, and part of the public ed system, but in reality, a whole other entity

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

83. Define many.

Because by my estimates, only a small fraction are for-profit.

[Writer]

22. Hello. Can I ask a question?

Why do liberals generally oppose charter schools? What is the concern?

[boppers]

24. Liberals don't, statist socialists do.

It's best to not confuse the two.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. The teachers unions oppose them.

And too many liberals blindly follow what unions say as infallible. Unions are often right, but they really, really aren't in education.

[YvonneCa]

60. Or maybe, rather than following blindly...

..our experience gives us clarity. ;) :hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

62. I've literally been to nearly a hundred schools across the country, in all settings.

My experience tells me that charter schools can be a very, very good thing.

[YvonneCa]

65. I think that's true. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

23. Cool by me.

I'll never understand the anti education reform orthodoxy that many here subscribe to.

[nyc 4 Biden]

59. great article...

The Selling Of School Reform

The Nation, June 15, 2009, by Dana Goldstein

http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/2009/06/nation-selling-of-school-reform.html

[w4rma]

25. They are obessessed with privatizing our schools. (nt)

[jefferson_dem]

28. Actually

they seem "obsessed" with finding and implementing whatever education policies actually work. No hysteria required.

[Lord Helmet]

29. +1

[Dinger]

42. -1

[AtomicKitten]

43. +2

[Dinger]

54. -Infinity

:rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

56. + infinity squared (+ video)

: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwNEXWL2HUg

[Dinger]

57. Oh Hell, You're Funny

:smoke:

[Catshrink]

88. But they aren't talking to teachers in the classrooms.

Arne talks to billionaires.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tailormyst]

45. What he clearly does not support are unions

[QC]

47. Supporting unions is not pragmatic, I guess. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. He supports unions when they aren't utterly and completely wrong.

And in this case, they are.

[Tailormyst]

49. Of course !

Because Obama is never wrong.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

50. I didn't say that.

I supported charters before there was even such a thing as Senator Obama though, thankyouverymuch.

[YvonneCa]

63. And teachers? Does he support...

...us? That is different than supporting unions.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

68. I'd say yes, but that's really not my call. (nt)

[Catshrink]

89. No. He supports demonizing teachers and blaming them for

school failure despite overwhelming evidence that SES, parental involvement, language barriers, etc. might contribute to a student's performance.

[Dinger]

55. An Unions Will NOT Vote For People Who Want To Bust Them

Period.:patriot:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

67. Tell that to UFT.

http://www.uft.org/news/issues/press/uft_and_green_dot_announce_agreement/

[Tarheel_Dem]

70. So you speak for "UNIONS"? I think this president supports them, but

is not willing to be lead around by the nose by them. But hey, if they have someone they think can beat him, they should "bring 'em on".:rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

69. So this president's "support of unions" has to be unqualified? Ever considered..

the union might be wrong? If our children ain't learnin', then we need to fix that, with or without the "unions".

[LisaM]

46. Like this charter school?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4367304

[HillGal]

51. Tell that to the Parents who had their kids in Charter Schools in Washington DC. NT

NT

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

66. ...okay.

DC's charters are usually good, and they do a good job of closing bad ones. But I'm sure you won't let facts get in the way.

[HillGal]

71. Acutally I made a mistake, I was talking about Obama taking away vouchers to kids in DC. Excuse the

mistake.

[nyc 4 Biden]

58. privatization of public school system is the next big fleecing coming our way.

the union busting is just the cherry on top for these greedy scumbags.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

64. Tell that to Green Dot.

http://www.uft.org/news/issues/press/uft_and_green_dot_announce_agreement/

[freddie mertz]

61. Interesting to observe how expressed support for a Democratic president and his policies...

.... that virtually everyone I know, including myself, actively supported...

... has merged with more or less uncritical support for a set of unabashedly CONSERVATIVE policies.

Pro-war, anti-union, anti-teacher, anti-"liberal," anti-GLBT rights, pro-offshore drilling, against trying Bush era war criminals, etc, etc...

How did it come to this?

Was it something we could or should have anticipated a year or two ago?

I barely recognize some of the statements here as related in any way to the Democratic party as I knew it, or my father knew it for that matter.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dinger]

73. Yes, Interesting

And predictable.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

77. Your attempt to denigrate Obama as a "CONSERVATIVE" is as much of a false frame as Republicans'...

... attempts to cast all of the President's policies as "socialist".

In reality, unbiased observers understand that President Obama's policies are neither.

[freddie mertz]

79. It is not "denigration"...

The president has taken some center-right positions on big issues.

But it is relevant that you mention the "socialist" canard, since he keeps being labeled as such (falsely), no matter how much he tries to attract Republican support.

My own suggestion would be that his moves to the right on key issues have not paid off.... so what not return to basic Dem platform/traditional principles and fight for them with renewed clarity?

I'm not expecting this of course.

[ClarkUSA]

80. Of course it was. It always is. But now you're moving the rhetorical goalposts...

... from "CONSERVATIVE" policies (which is plainly ridiculous - just ask the Republican caucus) to "center-right" positions (which is dubious as well - just ask Blue Dog Democrats about their "nay" votes on HCR). Pres. Obama is no Bill Clinton, whose deregulating policies and Republican pandering (CAFTA. NAFTA, media deregulation, financial deregulation, welfare "reform", DOMA, DADT, etc.) define "center-right". Clinton was referred to as a "pander-bear" by many because of it.

Pres. Obama has fulfilled plenty of "basic Dem principles" in his historically successful legislative first year (new CAFE standards, HCR, strictly regulation mountaintop mining, greenhouse gas regulation, investigating Goldman-Sachs for fraud, did I mention HCR, supporting the repeal of DADT... just to mention a few) which is why his approval numbers among self-described liberals is consistently high. Now Massey's CEO Don Blankenship is blasting President Obama as "evil" along with unions: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x287594

:rofl:

Presently, Pres. Obama's administration is getting ready to slap new regulations on new offshore drilling which will effectively inhibit any further attempts, which will draw howls from real "CONSERVATIVES". And his administration read Shahzad his Miranda rights, frustrating "CONSERVATIVES" like John McCain and Tom Tancredo, just as his complete disapproval of AZ's new immigration law differs from "CONSERVATIVE" politicians. Your polemic is full of holes.

[freddie mertz]

81. We could debate some of those issues civilly and legitimately...

Regarding HCR, that has been hashed out endlessly, and in my opinion, what we got was, to a significant extent, a moderate Republican bill (Heritage, Dole, Romney etc.).

As for DADT, that keeps getting postponed for a "study" and for political reasons, and is now officially off the table as far as the WH is concerned till 2013, by which time the Dem majorities are likely to be even weaker.

Some small progress has been made in the other areas you cite, but for the most part, it has been moderate, cautious legislation at best.

You could argue that the political mood of the country has shifted "right" over the past two years. Certainly the very far right seems to have taken over the Republican party.

Obama has not by any means "far right" in his governance. I would call it centrist, with a mix of some mild liberal policies with (formerly mainstream) conservative ones.

What disturbs many of us is the lack of action or all-too-willing capitulation on some of the bigger things--dropping the public option, excluding single-payer from public discussion, failure to advance EFCA, unconscionable delays on DADT, expansion of off-shore drilling and nuclear plant construction, etc. (I could go on).

If you can't recall how much opposition there used to be in Dem circles to these very policies, not to mention issues of war and peace, war crimes, and warrantless surveillance of citizens, etc, you have a very short memory indeed.

And that was the extent of my observation.

Or maybe, since from your posts, at least, you seem to fall squarely on the center-right side of the party base, you are just happy with the current flow of things.

The Dem party is a coalition of various social and ideological groups. Maybe your interests and concerns are being addressed. Obviously, many of mine are not.

[ClarkUSA]

82. Of course. Unfortunately, your "debate" is limited to unsupported polemic.

However, I'll address a few of them:

<<Regarding HCR, that has been hashed out endlessly, and in my opinion, what we got was, to a significant extent, a moderate Republican bill (Heritage, Dole, Romney etc.).>>

Then I guess you think Edwards' and Hillary's bill was "to a significant extent, a moderate Republican bill" too? Because a plan like Hillary's was RomneyCare to a T. It's amusing to me that so many DUers who lauded Edwards' and Hillary's HCR plans turned out to be the most vociferous opponents of HCR. Furthermore, HCR's mandate was purposefully designed to be not enforceable. HCR has significant amendments in it that were the brainchild of socialist Bernie Sanders, as that gentleman will proudly tell you himself, so that may be why no Republican voted for it.

<<As for DADT, that keeps getting postponed for a "study" and for political reasons, and is now officially off the table as far as the WH is concerned till 2013, by which time the Dem majorities are likely to be even weaker.>>

Bottom line: this support for DADT repeal is not a "CONSERVATIVE" or "center-right" position. And the WH is moving forward in an historic manner: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/05/04/Gay_Vets_To_Lobby_White_House/

<<Some small progress has been made in the other areas you cite, but for the most part, it has been moderate, cautious legislation at best.>>

Bullshit. Most of the legislation I cite has been hailed as "landmark" and "historic" by unbiased sources.

<<Obama has not by any means "far right" in his governance. I would call it centrist, with a mix of some mild liberal policies with (formerly mainstream) conservative ones.>>

No matter how much you try to minimize Pres. Obama's actions, it doesn't detract from the fact that raising CAFE standards for the first time in decades, establishing greenhouse emission standards for the first time in U.S. history, strictly regulating mountaintop mining to the extent it will kill any new attempts, and investigating the biggest Wall Street investment firm (aka. Goldman-Sachs) for fraud, ending torture and going back to supporting the Geneva Convention are not "mild liberal" policies.

<<What disturbs many of us is the lack of action or all-too-willing capitulation on some of the bigger things--dropping the public option, excluding single-payer from public discussion, failure to advance EFCA, unconscionable delays on DADT, expansion of off-shore drilling and nuclear plant construction, etc. (I could go on).>>

There is no "expansion of offshore drilling" now and likely will never be after the Obama administration gets done imposing new and onerous regulations. As for the rest, why don't y'all run for president and do better? I mean, since y'all seem to know so much more than Pres. Obama and the WH about how to pass the perfect legislation through Congress? :eyes:

<<If you can't recall how much opposition there used to be in Dem circles to these very policies, not to mention issues of war and peace, war crimes, and warrantless surveillance of citizens, etc, you have a very short memory indeed.>>

lol! My memory is not so short that I don't recall that you have been roundly and consistently criticizing Pres. Obama for as long as I've read your posts.

<<Or maybe, since from your posts, at least, you seem to fall squarely on the center-right side of the party base, you are just happy with the current flow of things.>>

"Or maybe, since from your posts, at least, you seem to fall squarely on the" 24/7 Obama critics side "of the party base, you are just" perpetually outraged "with the current flow of things."

[freddie mertz]

84. I wish you could lift it above ad hom attack mode, even for one post.

There was nothing of the sort in what I posted to you.

Sigh.

We will just have to disagree. If that makes me some sort of hateful monstrous interloper in your eyes, there is probably nothing I can do about it.

[ClarkUSA]

85. That's false. I did nothing of the sort; I simply stated the obvious. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

86. Who are these unbiased observers?

Who is it that you honestly think is neutral on policies of national scope?

[donco6]

90. So which one is Obama actually against? Did the poster make a mistake?

Because he seems to be telling the truth here.

[scentopine]

76. The unprincipaled and unfounded purity of the centrist will be the death of us all -nt