Secretary of Education nominee Betsy DeVos and Detroit's schools

[renf]

Is it appropriate to conclude that the Michigan experiment with charter schools proves they are a failure or would it be more accurate to say that charter schools may be successful but the way Michigan allowed most anyone to establish a school was a failure? Even in Michigan there are some charter schools that appear to be successful. Massachusetts made it extremely difficult to establish a charter school but those few that were set up apparently were successful. It seem that there are few for-profit charter schools that have been successful and the Michigan strategy has been to approve very many for profit charter schools.

[Wesley Mouch]

We HAVE given the privatization/charter school agenda a try, and it hasn't worked. Just to be clear, I am not opposed to privatization or charter schools, and I had hopes that the charter school experiment would yield improved outcomes, but they just haven't.

Instead of continuing to expand this failed experiment, it would be better for us to look at the schools that have found ways to create academic improvements under similar circumstances, and then try to replicate their successes. There are examples of public and private schools overcoming these challenges in America and abroad, so we should be looking at these successful examples to figure out what they did to overcome the odds, and then utilize those strategies.

The most effective strategies for turning around substandard schools may involve more privatization or less privatization, but we should be striving for the best outcomes, and not blindly supporting a dogmatic approach.

Why do you think charters are a 'dogmatic' approach?

As to 'replicating [[academic improvement's) success'... what is the obstacle?

Perhaps we're talking past each other. By Charters, I do not necessarily mean only for-profit schools, but the ability of non-monopoly educational options. Thus, Charters seem like the right vehicle to 'strive for best outcomes'. Otherwise, it seems like we're striving for the status-quo.

It has always surprised me that liberals on education are conservative -- preferring the publicly managed education monopoly over allowing alternatives of varying degrees of privatization. I just can't see how killing charters helps children -- even if some or most are failures, I value experimentation.

[ct_alum]

Why do you think charters are a 'dogmatic' approach?

As to 'replicating [[academic improvement's) success'... what is the obstacle?

Perhaps we're talking past each other. By Charters, I do not necessarily mean only for-profit schools, but the ability of non-monopoly educational options. Thus, Charters seem like the right vehicle to 'strive for best outcomes'. Otherwise, it seems like we're striving for the status-quo.

It has always surprised me that liberals on education are conservative -- preferring the publicly managed education monopoly over allowing alternatives of varying degrees of privatization. I just can't see how killing charters helps children -- even if some or most are failures, I value experimentation.

Yes, Wesley, you value experimentation as long as it is with somebody else's kids; if they are poor & black all the better, correct?

[G-DDT]

Experimentation is a luxury for the rich and well off who have the financial headroom to lose if the stakes they put up get lost. Detroit [[and much of Michigan) is in a financially tenuous situation that can't afford risks by conservative bozos with transparent agendas that are being dismissed while the less feasible ones are being pronounced [[ie. "no no no no frakking isn't causing Oklahoma to sink into the ground-it's 'creating jobs'"). Right now Detroit needs stability.

The DeVos are well rotten in their dealings. They are well connected contributors to such think tanks as [[as well as past leaders of) the Council of National Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counci...icy#Leadership[[as noted even by other conservatives-read "Ominous Politics" by John S. Saloma). Their's is not an unbiased agenda. Privatized is an ugly thing-whether it be old folk's homes, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, or schools. With schools it will be the Gablers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_and_Norma_Gabler all over again [[which in some cases the school text books needed some tweaking, but not to exclude facts surrounding the Vietnam war or the genocide of Native American Indians).

[G-DDT]

Interesting theory about Wesley, Jimaz. Of all the genuine folks from Detroit who SHOULD be sounding off on DY [[but sadly are not-like the many I see at the Jazzfest whose opinions I feel really count), we get someone who just happens to be "one of the most cyber-apt conservative persons in all of poor Hamtramck". Hmmmm?

Come to think of it, I would like to make the long overdue request that anyone who feels they need to get on a Detroit forum site to sound off their politics [[be they conservative OR liberal) should start engaging in forums that give us a little insight to where they are coming from. There should be NO PROBLEM in getting on certain threads like-oh....say this one: http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...ht=high+schooland tell us a bit about your experiences from Detroit [[this goes for you GMan).

This is a long time coming and I'm PISSED OFF!!

I'm sick of folks who were genuine Detroiters [[mostly women) and tell genuine stories about things that they saw go down in their own neighborhoods only to get a deluge of contention from the same sockpuppet yahoos who descend on them and cause them to give up. I'm sick and tired of seeing a lack of true engagement with things really pertaining to Detroit. No one sites stories from Detroit news sources like they used to [[just search past threads and you will see the stark difference).

Instead you got threads addressing dry clinical and statistical crud about development, financing, infrastructures, and roads. These seem like the very things only developers and investors from Chicago or other cities look into when they want to "reconstruct Detroit in their own vision". They are also the things any outsider can look up on Forbes or Google maps or elsewhere. So all the things that make Detroit great: community, culture, events that transpire, personal accounts seem to take a remote and suppressed back seat to this.

As much as I may not agree with guys like Hermod, Danny, or Johnny5, at least I have a better intimation with them if there is some confirmation that they are a Detroiter [[or former Detroiter) like myself.

Even if you are just someone who visited our city for an extended period of time [[say a month) and feel some intimation with Detroit. Fine. Yet, don't be some ASSHOLE [[yeah, I said it-I'm that mad-and have been for some time) from another city who visits once for a game, wrinkles their nose at us, and says to themselves "well, you know what?-they got a forum. I know what would make that sh*thole city better. I'm going to join their forum and start injecting consrevo-anti-union, pro-corporate, anti-homeless, anti-police abuse protest, anti-activist, don't-get-PC-on-me-and-call-me-a-racist rhetoric every chance I get".

So, what gives folks? Time to start showing some transparency where you are coming from, here.

[Bham1982]

You really think that Ms. DeVos doesn't care about education, simply because he ideas don't line up with yours?

I don't think she cares about public education; given she has spent much of her adult life trying to destroy public schools.

Don't really care whether she cares about "education" in general, as that isn't the role of the Ed Secretary.

Even if she has a 'privatizing' agenda, so what? Why not give it a try.

Michigan has been "giving it a try" for 15-20 years, with disastrous results. We've gone from one of the best state public education systems to one of the worst. We have some of the most liberal charter school laws in the nation, and the vast majority of MI charters are low-performing for-profit schemes.

There's an argument that in aggregate, charters do no better than public education -- but that also suggests that they do no worse.

No. Research indicates that charters do worse than traditional public schools. In fact Detroit charters do significantly worse even than DPS, which is kinda impressive in its abject failure. When DPS is kicking your ass in terms of academics I think it's fair to say you've failed.

[jt1]

No. Research indicates that charters do worse than traditional public schools. In fact Detroit charters do significantly worse even than DPS, which is kinda impressive in its abject failure. When DPS is kicking your ass in terms of academics I think it's fair to say you've failed.

What is even more impressive is that charters are not required to take in special ed students, ESL students or any other kids that they deem 'undesirable' or that could impact their testing.

Simply put, they are doing just as bad while picking and choosing their students. Comparing just peer groups they are doing significantly worse.

**Full disclaimer: I think the world would be better off if Dick and Betsy DeVos were found at the bottom of Lake Michigan**

[G-DDT]

**Full disclaimer: I think the world would be better off if Dick and Betsy DeVos were found at the bottom of Lake Michigan**

Whoa!

Thank you for your candid honesty. I'd never go that far. Yet, I would like them very much removed out of the picture by many degrees separation.

Good thing there is a difference between what thought, word, and action.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Does anyone seriously think a quality education is the goal of most charter schools, or their advocates?

[detroittrader]

Whoa!

Thank you for your candid honesty. I'd never go that far. Yet, I would like them very much removed out of the picture by many degrees separation.

Good thing there is a difference between what thought, word, and action.

They deserve a swamp, lets keep our lake's clean:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/201...e-gods-kingdom

[renf]

The focus should be on the education of children. The idea that charter schools might be more effective than public schools is a reasonable one. There was a good deal of convincing evidence that traditional parochial schools did a somewhat better job that public schools but their era is over. What we know is that the way charter schools were established in Michigan did not produce, in general, favorable results. Let's hope that the DeVos approach to charter schools does not spread across the nation.

[Jimaz]

Does anyone seriously think a quality education is the goal of most charter schools, or their advocates?

Now I'm wondering whether Walmart would hire someone with a diploma from Walmart.

[swingline]

Mrs. DeVos is a free market ideologue. In her world, the delivery of education is no different than running a business. No exceptions. This absurd belief drives her faith in charter schools and in unfettered "school choice." It doesn't really have much to do with the kids. It has more to do with government and unions --- bad bad --- and private for profit business --- the American way.

[erikd]

Why do you think charters are a 'dogmatic' approach?

As to 'replicating [[academic improvement's) success'... what is the obstacle?

Perhaps we're talking past each other. By Charters, I do not necessarily mean only for-profit schools, but the ability of non-monopoly educational options. Thus, Charters seem like the right vehicle to 'strive for best outcomes'. Otherwise, it seems like we're striving for the status-quo.

It has always surprised me that liberals on education are conservative -- preferring the publicly managed education monopoly over allowing alternatives of varying degrees of privatization. I just can't see how killing charters helps children -- even if some or most are failures, I value experimentation.

Why do I think that charters are a 'dogmatic' approach?

I don't think that charters are a dogmatic approach. I think that people who continue to push for more charter schools, despite the fact that they have not resulted in improved outcomes, are taking a dogmatic approach.

As I said: "The most effective strategies for turning around substandard schools may involve more privatization or less privatization, but we should be striving for the best outcomes, and not blindly supporting a dogmatic approach."

I support school strategies that are effective, be they public, private, charter, whatever.

When I talk about a dogmatic approach, I am talking about this mindset:

"By Charters, I do not necessarily mean only for-profit schools, but the ability of non-monopoly educational options. Thus, Charters seem like the right vehicle to 'strive for best outcomes'. Otherwise, it seems like we're striving for the status-quo."

Maybe I am misinterpreting your statement, but it sure sounds like a dogmatic mindset against public schools [[monopoly educational options), and dogmatic support for continued expansion of charter schools [[even though they haven't resulted in improved outcomes).

If charters haven't made things better, how can you say that "Charters seem like the right vehicle to 'strive for best outcomes'. Otherwise, it seems like we're striving for the status-quo." That sure sounds like a dogmatic approach...

[Bong-Man]

Mrs. DeVos is a free market ideologue. In her world, the delivery of education is no different than running a business. No exceptions. This absurd belief drives her faith in charter schools and in unfettered "school choice." It doesn't really have much to do with the kids. It has more to do with government and unions --- bad bad --- and private for profit business --- the American way.

Interesting you use the word faith, because bringing the invisible man in the classroom by any means necessary is part of her agenda that people don't seem to acknowledge.

Americans wonder why our kids trail in science and math, yet I get two daily newspapers with pages of religious articles, and not one on science. I guess you can always pray for good test results.

[renf]

Saturday Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by a Detroit News writer that lavished much praise on Betsy DeVos including statements about her efforts and the charter schools led to somewhat higher test score for Detroit students. She did not present convincing evidence on that point.
Today's Washington Post has a long story about the disagreements that charter school advocates have about Betsy DeVos. Apparently many supporters of charter schools think that Michigan is a primary example of how they should not be established. They seem to blame Betsy DeVos for the many dysfunctional charter schools we have in Michigan and wonder why she should be appointed Secretary of Education.

[Zacha341]

It's going to be something, how this whole DeVos installation is going to prove out. In Detroit some charters are little more than glorified store fronts. There's very little consistency.

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...Maybe I am misinterpreting your statement, but it sure sounds like a dogmatic mindset against public schools [[monopoly educational options), and dogmatic support for continued expansion of charter schools [[even though they haven't resulted in improved outcomes).

If charters haven't made things better, how can you say that "Charters seem like the right vehicle to 'strive for best outcomes'. Otherwise, it seems like we're striving for the status-quo." That sure sounds like a dogmatic approach...

Yes, I have a dogmatic belief that only by experimentation can you get results. I believe that monopolies are harmful. Be they corporation, union, or educational. I believe it with religious fervor. I find arguments against competition to be mostly self-serving. I dogmatically distrust self-serving arguments that somehow, the status quo needs protection.

As to De Vos, Trump is certainly unconventional. So little surprise he's nominating someone who is unconventional in education circles. We'll see how it goes. Maybe she'll shake a few things up -- and that might be good.

[renf]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us...ttom-well&_r=0

The morning paper has two essays about President-elect Trump's nominee to serve as Secretary of Education. This is the one focused upon Detroit's school. The other one describes her interest in, perhaps, introducing faith-based ideas into our schools.

Are there any scientific studies about how parents make decisions when they have a wide array of state supported schools for their children? Apparently, administrators at some for-profit charter schools near Detroit believe that offering television sets and bicycles will get parents to enroll their children in the charter school thereby getting the operator $7500 or so of state money per students. I hope parents are making much more informed choices but it is extremely difficult to measure the quality of a school and their teachers.

[erikd]

Yes, I have a dogmatic belief that only by experimentation can you get results. I believe that monopolies are harmful. Be they corporation, union, or educational. I believe it with religious fervor. I find arguments against competition to be mostly self-serving. I dogmatically distrust self-serving arguments that somehow, the status quo needs protection.

As to De Vos, Trump is certainly unconventional. So little surprise he's nominating someone who is unconventional in education circles. We'll see how it goes. Maybe she'll shake a few things up -- and that might be good.

I don't have a disagreement with your viewpoints on experiments, distrust of monopolies, or dislike of maintaining the status quo.

I think that we are not too much unalike in our views on this. I was a big supporter of the movement to experiment with privatization of schools, expand charters, etc. I thought that privatization might be able to overcome some of the challenges and struggles faced by underperforming public schools.

Unfortunately, the shift to private/charter schools hasn't resulted in any widespread or significant improvement, so I have tempered my support for continued expansion of this experiment, in favor of looking at the successes and failures that we have seen so far, and then adjusting the strategy.

It seems that this is where we differ and disagree... I supported the charter/privatization experiment, but it hasn't worked, so I do not support continued expansion of this failed experiment as-is.

I do support attempts to learn from and replicate the successful charter schools, but I'm not interested in blowing up public schools in favor of charter schools when there is no evidence that it will improve outcomes.

I support charter schools and privatization when it actually leads to better outcomes. I don't support it when it's only based on a dogmatic belief that privatization is always better than public services.

[hathorlive]

I think since her primary goal has been to make charters immune from statistical analysis [[aka grading it on performance) we can safely say her goal is not to improve education but to protect the cash cow that issues charters and makes money running schools.

Good charters with student achievement should be kept. Charters that cherry pick students and get the same or worse results as DPS should be closed.

She can't say "let's not judge these schools" and turn around and say she wants better results for students.

[Bham1982]

Yes, I have a dogmatic belief that only by experimentation can you get results. I believe that monopolies are harmful. Be they corporation, union, or educational. I believe it with religious fervor. I find arguments against competition to be mostly self-serving. I dogmatically distrust self-serving arguments that somehow, the status quo needs protection.

Charters don't really introduce "competition". They're for-profit entities that generally leech upon the weakest school districts, driving overall performance lower and wasting public resources [[because taxpayers are now paying for a half-empty traditional district and the upstart for profit district). They're more like a tumor than an apples-to-apples competitor.

And there would be no education "monopolies" in Michigan even if there were no charters. Parents can send their kids to any district in the state. There's massive choice, already. If you want charters too, fine, but regulate them and only allow nonprofits so taxpayers aren't paying for sleazy out-of-state operators making millions off our kids while paying teachers 25k and forcing the taxpayers to make up the difference.

And the ultimate question is this: have charters in MI resulted in better outcomes? The answer is an unequivocal no. Charters do worse than publics, and overall state peformance has plummeted since DeVos started buying off the legislature and removing charters from oversight.

The fact that our Trumpenfuhrer decided to appoint the leading advocate for perhaps the most failed statewide charter system in the U.S. is an extremely bad sign. MI is the national poster child for how not to implement charters. We're a national joke.

[Wesley Mouch]

I don't have a disagreement with your viewpoints on experiments, distrust of monopolies, or dislike of maintaining the status quo.

I think that we are not too much unalike in our views on this. I was a big supporter of the movement to experiment with privatization of schools, expand charters, etc. I thought that privatization might be able to overcome some of the challenges and struggles faced by underperforming public schools.

Unfortunately, the shift to private/charter schools hasn't resulted in any widespread or significant improvement, so I have tempered my support for continued expansion of this experiment, in favor of looking at the successes and failures that we have seen so far, and then adjusting the strategy.

It seems that this is where we differ and disagree... I supported the charter/privatization experiment, but it hasn't worked, so I do not support continued expansion of this failed experiment as-is.

I do support attempts to learn from and replicate the successful charter schools, but I'm not interested in blowing up public schools in favor of charter schools when there is no evidence that it will improve outcomes.

I support charter schools and privatization when it actually leads to better outcomes. I don't support it when it's only based on a dogmatic belief that privatization is always better than public services.

We don't seem very far apart -- I agree.

Where we do disagree is on where to go from here.

Ms. DeVos may not be the best answer. But its also clear to me that the past isn't the place to look for the future. I also distrust much of the negative press on DeVos -- since both sides here are selecting quotations and beating up their opponents.

Let me address one statement of yours:

so I do not support continued expansion of this failed experiment as-is.

I can respect your position, but I suggest that increasing requirements is precisely the step that will ensure conformance -- rather than innovation.

Look for example at the class-size war. Unions love this war, as it is a pretty direct proxy for teacher employment. So they push class-size requirements into collective bargaining. This means its very expensive for a district to get maximum class sizes increased.

But suppose a charter were to experiment, and try making reading classes very small, but history classes very large. It might not affect teacher employment overall, but it would violate the class-size rule. A charter might be able to experiment.

Sometimes experiments fail. And sometimes they succeed. Your approach leans towards discouraging experimentation because you see that experimentation to-date hasn't delivered results.

Maybe the results are there, but just not measured. I'll be we agree that measurement of student success is hard.

[ABetterDetroit]

Looks like at least a couple Republicans are taking a closer look at the current state of education in Detroit schools public and private and are having a little trouble saying "let's roll this out nation wide." Don't blame them, it's a little difficult to spin as "it's working, she's a genius."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politi...nee/index.html

[Wesley Mouch]

Looks like at least a couple Republicans are taking a closer look at the current state of education in Detroit schools public and private and are having a little trouble saying "let's roll this out nation wide." Don't blame them, it's a little difficult to spin as "it's working, she's a genius."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politi...nee/index.html

I expect leaders to 'take a closer look' and 'public and private' education in Detroit. The whole point of charters is to encourage 'public and private' reassessments of results, and to adjust methods, if you believe as I do that the 'public' system wasn't up to the task of advocating for different approaches.

The argument against charters [[which I read here between the lines, paranoid as I am) is that they haven't cured the patient. The better argument is whether charters are providing more diversity in educational methods so we can see what works, and what doesn't.