Opinion

 Op Ed: There’s No Such Thing as a “Public Charter School”

Published

8 years ago

August 15, 2016

By Ann Berlak

This year, more than a quarter of Oakland’s 49,000 students are attending one of its nearly 40 charter schools, far more per capita than anywhere else in the state.

Is this something for Oaklanders to boast about?

Not long ago I visited a school in Oakland to read to third graders on “Literacy Day.” On  the way to the classroom I asked my guide if this was a charter or a public school. The  immediate and decisive response: “We’re a public charter school.”

On June 14^th the LA Times informed the public: “Charters are independently operated, free public schools.”

The California Department of Education makes no bones about it: “A charter school is a public school.”

However, the term “public charter school” was developed by a PR firm to reframe the way we understand schooling in relationship to “public” and to democracy.

The campaign has been wildly successful. However, though the term “public charter school” is increasingly ubiquitous, charters are not public schools.

Public institutions—schools, libraries, zoos—are, at least in theory, funded by  taxes from all the people in its jurisdiction—local, state and national—and are held accountable to and by those people through that fundamental process we in a democracy call voting.

Most public schools are accountable to an elected school board made up of community  members. Residents of that community have the right to be present at Board meetings, weigh in  on votes and debates, and access public financial documents.

Charter schools are run by executive boards, committees or corporations whose members often  live outside the community in which they are located and are not accountable to parents or  the taxpayers/community members who fund them.

If you don’t like what your traditional public school is doing, you can make your voice heard by  addressing administrators, voting for new leadership or taking a leadership role yourself. If  you don’t like what your child’s charter school is doing and you express yourself, you may be  asked to leave. There is no democratic mechanism for spearheading policy change.

Public institutions are the motors of democracy. Their purpose is to  promote and preserve the fundamental values of a democratic society: liberty, equality and  the public welfare or common good.

Public schools recognize that the welfare of everyone’s children and grandchildren is  intimately linked to the welfare of all. Through support and oversight by the community,  public schooling is intended to serve the common good and preserve fundamental qualities that sustain  democracy beyond getting students “college and career ready.” If public schools have not always lived up to their promise then it is necessary to redouble our efforts to have them do so, not to abandon them.

When students leave public schools for charter schools they take their per pupil expenditures –which in California averaged $9,794 last year–with them, leaving public schools with less revenue but the same overhead.

The federal government also spends millions on charters at the expense of public schools. Taxpayers paid one consulting firm nearly $10 million to the U.S. Department of Education Charter Schools. That’s $10 million fewer federal dollars for public schools.

The law forbids local districts, which in California are the main authorizers for new charters, from taking into account the potentially crippling impact of new charters on district financing when considering approving new schools.

So even if you find an excellent charter to send your own child to, you are reducing the chances of every student remaining in the public school having their own excellent education.

Charter schools’ claim they enhance democracy is disingenuous.

The highly touted freedom of individual parents to choose their child’s school comes at the heavy price of reducing two other essential functions of democracy: providing for the general welfare of a society that requires well funded public schools and insuring equal opportunity for all children.

Competing with traditional public schools for space and funding reduces the quality of the remaining public schools, and ignores patterns of clear advantage for the children of savvy parents, thus assuring that some children will be better schooled than others.

Being publicly funded, charters cannot be considered private. However, their private governance and their marginalization of fundamental democratic values disqualify them as public.

The most accurate label for charters is “Publicly–funded private schools.” Don’t let them abscond with our language. There is no such thing as a public charter school.

Ann Berlak is an author and has worked as a teacher and teacher educator. She lives in Oakland.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Related Topics:Ann Berlak California Department of Education charter schools Oakland OP-ED Opinion public schools

Up Next

Op-Ed: Soda Tax Would Hurt Low-Income Families

Don't Miss

Open Letter to Uber CEO Travis Kalanick

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Commentary

Harris Dominates First Presidential Debate as Trump Struggles to Defend Record

NNPA NEWSWIRE — Vice President Kamala Harris positioned herself as a problem-solver, taking on issues like housing, childcare, and the economy. In her opening statement, she outlined her “opportunity economy” plan, which focuses on bolstering the middle class. “I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America,” Harris said. She detailed a $6,000 child tax credit as part of her plan to support young families.

Published

1 week ago

October 2, 2024

Oakland Post

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris during their first presidential debate Philadelphia on Tuesday night. Photo: Screen capture from ABC News feed of the debate.

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent

Vice President Kamala Harris decisively took control of the first presidential debate against former President Donald Trump in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, delivering a performance that put Trump on the defensive for much of the evening. Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC News kept a tight handle on the debate, significantly improving from CNN’s June handling of Trump and President Joe Biden.

The debate began with a surprise as Harris approached Trump to shake his hand and introduced herself as “Kamala Harris,” an unusual move that set the tone for the night. Trump’s trademark scowl stayed in place throughout the debate, as Harris pressed him on his legal woes and diminished his record. Displaying her prosecutorial skills, Harris consistently turned the conversation toward Trump’s convictions, his business fraud case, and his role in the January 6 insurrection.

Harris positioned herself as a problem-solver, taking on issues like housing, childcare, and the economy. In her opening statement, she outlined her “opportunity economy” plan, which focuses on bolstering the middle class.

“I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America,” Harris said. She detailed a $6,000 child tax credit as part of her plan to support young families.

Trump, by contrast, criticized the Biden-Harris economy, calling it “the worst period of time” he had seen. He defended his tariff policies and took aim at Harris, labeling her a “Marxist” while also accusing her of copying his economic policies. “I was going to send her a MAGA hat,” Trump quipped.

Abortion rights were another major focus of the night. Trump, when asked if he would veto a federal abortion ban, declined to answer directly, stating, “I won’t have to,” and arguing that the end of Roe v. Wade had satisfied everyone. Harris, in turn, vowed to restore Roe’s protections through federal legislation if elected.

“I pledge to you: when Congress passes a bill to put back in place the protections of Roe v. Wade as President of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law,” she said.

As the debate went on, Trump repeated several conspiracy theories, including a claim that migrants were eating pets in U.S. cities, which Muir quickly fact-checked. Trump doubled down, citing “people on television” as his source. Harris largely let Trump’s more outlandish statements pass, opting to stay on policy while allowing the moderators to address his factually inaccurate remarks.

In one of the most heated moments, Harris invited viewers to attend a Trump rally for themselves, commenting, “He talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter and windmills causing cancer. You’ll notice people start leaving his rallies early—out of exhaustion and boredom.”

Trump, visibly irritated, retorted that he holds “the most incredible rallies in the history of politics,” but the debate soon returned to more substantive issues like crime and inflation.

The night clearly contrasted Biden’s earlier debate with Trump, as Harris managed to keep Trump on the defensive. Trump continued to fixate on conspiracy theories and past grievances, while Harris stayed focused on presenting her vision for the future.

With fewer than 60 days until the election, the debate sets the tone for what will likely be a hard-fought campaign. As the debate ended, Harris closed with a message to the American people: “This is about who we are as a country. The choice is clear—between chaos and leadership, fear and hope.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Commentary

Opinion: In First Presidential Debate, Harris Exposes Trump’s Inadequacies

She’s still calling herself the underdog, but the biracial woman from Oakland, half Black and half Asian American, just changed the race for the presidency of the United States. If you ever doubted Kamala Harris’ ability to be our nation’s leader, everyone who watched Tuesday’s debate saw how fully capable she is of the job. She belongs in the White House.

Published

1 week ago

October 2, 2024

Oakland Post

Screenshot from Presidential Debate.

By Emil Guillermo

She’s still calling herself the underdog, but the biracial woman from Oakland, half Black and half Asian American, just changed the race for the presidency of the United States.

If you ever doubted Kamala Harris’ ability to be our nation’s leader, everyone who watched Tuesday’s debate saw how fully capable she is of the job.

She belongs in the White House.

Harris not only bested Donald Trump in arguing the facts; she showed how totally inadequate Trump is to again be our country’s Commander-in-Chief.

Harris deftly made her case on issue after issue, while baiting and manipulating Trump on the economy, on abortion, and on immigration.

Imagine how Putin and other world leaders play Trump. Harris exposed Trump for all to see. It wasn’t exactly an “emperor has no clothes” moment. It was more like “the twice impeached, convicted felon on 34 counts” has no business running for president. Trump is unfit mentally for the job, if not unfit morally.

It must have been a disappointment for deep MAGA to see their candidate so incapable of holding his own against Harris. At one point, she had him defending the crowd size at his rallies after she said people were leaving because he was boring.

And then instead of real policies that impact our lives, the former president spoke passionately about… his crowd size.

When that happened, I think everyone could see: Harris ate his lunch.

Going into the debate, the consensus in this tight race was that it was a virtual tie with Trump one point ahead.

But after their first meeting ever in a head-to-head-match up, CNN’s instant poll showed Harris winning the debate well beyond any margin of error, 63 percent to 37 percent.

There’s more distance between the two than previously understood. The debate exposed that.

TRUMP’S LIES

At the beginning of the week, I said the only way Trump could win the debate was if he “played nice.”

But the bully just couldn’t do it.

Acting presidential was just one lie Trump couldn’t pull off in another debate night mired in Trump lies.

Did his administration really do “a phenomenal job in the pandemic” when over a million Americans are dead? Is Kamala Harris “a Marxist and everybody knows it”? And what about those cat-eating immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, where every local official confirmed to news organizations that the story was false. There was even a lie on that Trump lie, when the former president said the immigrants were eating cats AND dogs. No, it’s just one lie. Just cats is enough.

And all that was just a fraction of the lies Trump told in the 90-minute debate.

Still, even with all that, I wouldn’t say Kamala Harris “whooped” Donald Trump.

It was more like general domination.

In fact, she had him at “Kamala Harris.”

When Trump seemed to dismiss the possibility of an opening handshake, Harris forced the issue. She walked toward Trump’s podium, reached out her hand, and introduced herself by name.

That gesture put Trump on the defensive all night.

About the Author

Emil Guillermo is a journalist and commentator. See his micro talkshow on YouTube.com/@emilamok1