Charter Schools Corporate Reformers Education Industry Privatization Special Education Students

Mulgrew Disagrees with Eva About Charter “Cherry Picking”

Interesting essay samples and examples on: https://essays.io/dissertation-examples-samples/

The following letter by Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers in New York City, appeared in the Wall Street Journal in response to a column by Eva Moskowitz about “The Myth of Charter Cherry Picking” (it is behind a paywall):

 

Mulgrew writes:

 

 

Eva Moskowitz must have been staring in the mirror when she wrote her latest screed about the “big lie” about charter vs. public schools (“The Myth of Charter-School ‘Cherry Picking,’” op-ed, Feb. 9). Even as others in the charter sector are beginning to acknowledge that differences in student demographics and attrition are a real problem in comparing charters to district schools, she and her organization have refused to admit that many charters don’t educate children with the same challenges as do public schools.

 

Let’s look at one among many examples—Success Academy 3 in Harlem. It shares a building with a local public school, but her charter has half as many English-language learners, fewer than a third as many special-education students and no “high-needs” students in the special-ed category versus 12% in the public school.

 

She also confuses student mobility with student attrition. Most schools in poor neighborhoods have high student turnover. But while public schools—and some charters—fill empty seats, Ms. Moskowitz’s schools don’t. According to state records, more than half the students in one Success Academy class left before graduation.

 

While Ms. Moskowitz cites a recent report from the city’s Independent Budget Office about student attrition in charters, she neglects to mention an earlier IBO report that found that it is the less successful students who tend to leave New York City charters. And as Princess Lyles and Dan Clark note “Keeping Precious Charter-School Seats Filled,” op-ed, Feb. 3), failure to fill these seats allows a school to maintain “the illusion of success,” as the percentage of proficient students rises.

 

So when Ms. Moskowitz and her allies claim that charters educate the same kinds of children as do the public schools, who is telling the truth?

 

 

Michael Mulgrew

 

 

Related posts

Ira Shor on Senate Revision of NCLB

V4tgDpeDBhQGUBa7

Peter Greene: Erie, PA, Considers Closing All Its High Schools

V4tgDpeDBhQGUBa7

Peter Greene: Congress to DeVos: “Sorry, Nope, No Way”

V4tgDpeDBhQGUBa7

Stuart Egan: How the North Carolina Legislature and Governor Are Destroying Public Schools and the Teaching Profession

V4tgDpeDBhQGUBa7

Philadelphia: Failing Charter School Fights Closure, Says It Is Better Than Public School ”Cesspools”

V4tgDpeDBhQGUBa7

The Implosion of Families for Excellent Schools, Phony from the Start

V4tgDpeDBhQGUBa7

Who Killed PARCC? Parents. Who Will Kill the For-Profit Charters?

V4tgDpeDBhQGUBa7

D.C.: Mayor Picks Private School Parent and Privatizer as Deputy Mayor for Education

V4tgDpeDBhQGUBa7

Texas Parents Sue State to Stop Use of Test Scores to Punish Students and Schools

V4tgDpeDBhQGUBa7

Leave a Comment