What did we say about charters?
Oh yeah. That they are being used to break up teachers’ unions. To McFry the nation’s teaching force. To lower wages. To increase hours.
Why not talk about ‘original intent‘? Because nothing anyone said about charters in the 1970’s affects what charter schools are today. (see also any discussion of the Second Amendment).
Charters, vouchers, small schools, and privatization are all part of a package of issues that the right wing uses against teachers’ unions and public education today. Did it have to be that way? No. But it is.
In particular, it is easy to see how small schools could work. I work in a small school that works (special circumstances) and I also know of many others that do. But I also know that the massive small-school-ification that has occurred in the poorest, Blackest, most Hispanic parts of NYC in the last few years has been an overall dismal effort. And I think that this has been the national trend.
What does my union, the United Federation of Teachers, say about charters schools and small schools? Next post…
JD2718 
My problem with this JD, is that the small schools idea doesn’t work in an edifice built for big schools. For instance, my school only has 2 gyms (1 of which can only really contain 1 class), 1 lunchroom, 1 floor for the talent area (on the bottom floor) and 40+ classes. There’s no way to divide the school where it’s truly all separate from each other. In other schools, I’ve heard it’s much worse.
I mean, it’s not the only issue I have with the small schools idea (besides that it’s usually done 1/2 assed), but it’s something to think about.
Jose,
I think you are right. That is one of the more prominent problems with the massive small school start ups in New York from about 2000 until now. Huge numbers have gone into large buildings. And even when they started putting some into their own buildings, they never undid the crowding they’d already caused.
Interesting. From what I hear in Texas I’d have thought that the right wing wanted large schools.
The district I live in is currently building a new high school and there is outcry from the parents. Why? Because it might undermine the school’s ability to field a strong 5A football team. I know that sports don’t have much to do with politics in principle, but I’d bet good money that the Texas parents who care most about football are also the most rabid right-wingers.
I like the idea of small schools even if it’s just because they’d cut down on traffic and make it easier for kids to walk. But I didn’t realize it was a loaded topic. I’ll be careful when I talk about it.
I’ll talk more about “original intent” in a follow-up post. For charter schools, they have never been anywhere close to the self-management ideal that was touted once upon a time.
The story is different with small schools, where there was a progressive small school movement that helped set up and support quite a few schools across the country. A fair number have been successful.
In the last few years, though, another kind of small school has been opening. Almost completely in poor neighborhoods. These have been often regimented, often with circumscribed union rights, and include a higher proportion of complete and dismal failures. In New York a group called “New Visions” opened many of these, with support from Bill and Melinda Gates. We have scores of them. And few work well. And some are hellholes.
What you are describing is a different kind of conserrvative. Those are people advocating FOR themselves. In New York, we have pundits, wonks, politicians, millionaires, all advocating against kids and against teachers.
I like that distinction between types of conservative. I’m pretty sure our local conservatives would change their minds quickly if they were told that small schools helped defend against immigrants, atheism, or unions. Especially if they could keep the large schools in well-to-do neighborhoods intact.
I hate it when a (potentially) good idea gets co-opted and distorted.