Edison Schools, and its controversial charter schools and EMO projects, hope to cash in on privatizing education and is bankrolled by Microsoft's co-founder Paul Allen to do it. The company was founded in 1992, its performance record is spotty, and too often deceptive. It cooks the books on its assessments results that unsurprisingly show far more than they achieve. That's clear when independent evaluations are made.
Kalamazoo's Western Michigan University's Evaluation Center published one of them in December 2000. Miami-Dade County public schools did another in the late 1990s. Both studies agreed. They showed Edison School students didn't outperform their public school counterparts, and they were kind in their assessment.
Even more disturbing was Edison's performance in Texas. It took over two Sherman, Texas schools in 1995, then claimed it raised student performance by 5%. But an independent American Institutes for Research (AIR) study couldn't confirm it because Edison threatened legal action if its results were revealed. It was later learned that AIR's findings weren't exactly glowing and were thus suppressed. However, Sherman schools knew them, and when Edison's contract came up for renewal, the company withdrew before being embarrassed by expulsion.
The city's school superintendent had this assessment. He said Edison arrived with promises to educate students at the same cost as public schools and would improve performance. In the end, the city spent an extra $4 million, and students test scores were lower than in other schools. The superintendent added: "They were more about money than teaching," and that's the problem with privatized education in all its forms - charter, contract or EMOs that place profits over students.
Unless public action stops it, Edison is the future and so is New Orleans in its worst of all forms. It's spreading fast, and without public knowledge or discussion. It's the privatization of all public spaces and belief that marketplace everything works best. Indeed for business, but not people who always lose out to profits.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests.
I am a 72 year old, retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.
The author has problems with every aspect of our education system except two: unions and the maintaining the status quo. It would have been nice to hear his take on the role unions play in determining every aspect of running our schools. It would have been nice to hear a comment on the fact that the rise of unionism in the schools parallels the decline of education in this country.
His viewpoints coincide with those of the unions. It is clear that the teacher's unions are not acting in the best interest of the children of this country. They oppose every reform, good or bad. If we truly want to improve education in this country then we have to limit union input into the educational system.
Charter schools can be a good thing. My son transferred to one after he stood up to a teacher trying to indoctorinate him in the public schools. I was called in for a 'teachers meeting' and sat in a room full of progressive, like minded unionized robots who were interested only in making my son toe THEIR line. In stead of using what my son said as a basis for dicsussion the teacher turned the class loose on him like a pack of rabid dogs because she did not agree with what he said. My son stood up for himself and recognized what happened and kept on arguing. This was not permitted in our Fascist school systems. Submit or else, so I was called in so I could help him see the errors in his ways. Big mistake on their smug, know-it-all part. He was in a charter school the next week. The charter school he went to was entirely different. Teachers cared about the students and worked hard to ensure they succeeded. Why? Because their salary increases and their jobs depended on it. They did not have a union protecting their smug political attitudes and teaching incompetence. Teachers, students, and parents at the charter school worked on one goal, the education of that student. A marvelous school. I would suggest to the author that he go visit a local charter school and a local high school and see what the differences are if he can in one visit. Talk to the parents instead of reading so called research by politically motivated and union financed or influenced groups.
All charter schools are not perfect by any means. But in my case I am glad that I had a choice. If I hadn't been working I would have home schooled my son. It is too bad others who are trapped in union run school systems do not have a choice if their school in a cesspool of educational incompetence. The unions don't want people to have that choice because it will be their death knell and they know it. The author knows it too because that is why he finds nothing but fault with all reform efforts. He wants children under the thumb of teacher unions. Teacher unions fight against reform like NCLB because they do not want to be held accountable for educating the children they deal with. I would have loved to have worked in a job where I wasn't accoutable for what I did. Be responsible? It isn't the Progressive/union way. The author wants to make the President responsible for want goes on in the classroom or whether school XYZ is successful or not. That is flat out ridiculous. The teachers, the administrators, the parents and the students are responsible, not some out-of-touch politician sitting in Washington no matter what his or her party is.
President Bush and Senator Kennedy should be given a little credit for trying to do something to end the evil stranglehold unions have on the educational system. No one else dares to buck the unions. The Progressives sure won't so you will not see any meaningful educational reform if a Democrat gets elected. More money for education (teacher's unions) doesn't equal reform. $25,000 / child is spent in Washington DC and they have one of the worst educational systems in the US. Money is not the answer. Accountability is. Non-unionized schools are.
by
Mad Jayhawk (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 313 comments)
on Monday, April 7, 2008 at 7:03:55 PM
There is no connection (unless you want to create one in your mind) between the teacher who promotes certain views in the classroom and the Unions. BTW, the comment above does not say what particular views of his son were considered and why the teacher was so upset. Big deal, really. BTW, the schools are not 'run by the unions'. They are run by school boards and those boards are elected by the local taxpayers. THAT is the problem. Public education in the US is paralysed because of the local taxes' funding. It has to be national, standardised, equal and have the same level from top to bottom. As for the non-unionised schools- private or charter- so be it if you can afford those. But unions themselves as the ones of professional people are a blessing as soon as the schools are in sorts toys of the local governments.
Returning back to the comment above: Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. You always find what you seek. Wrong method of teaching can be interpreted as 'union bias', etc. The US public education suffers from one and only one disease- IT IS NOT PUBLIC!
That's the issue. And no homeschooling can correct that.
by
Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3462 comments)
on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 8:57:19 AM
2 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
