Eduwonk picks out an old post of mine on vouchers and issues a response.

The question here is whether Rotherham’s opposition to vouchers is ideological or pragmatic. Here’s what he has to say:

Issues of program efficacy aside, a big concern with a lot of voucher proposals is that they sever the link between democratic accountability and decision making and publicly funded education. That’s ideology, sure, and a debatable concern. But it’s not a trivial issue in terms of thinking about how to deliver education in a democratic society.

So, we have an answer: ideological.

Frankly — and here my own ideology comes into play — I don’t give a plague rat’s ass about “democratic accountability.” If you want democratic accountability, well, we’ve already got it. It’s called the public school system. It’s a sewer, at least for poor kids, and that’s why we’re even having this debate.

So, spare me the usual talk about how voucher schools are somehow less accountable than traditional public schools — it would be an impossibility.

Now, as for charter schools — which Rotherham calls a way “to square that circle and provide parents with more options while protecting the public interest” — my thinking has always been a bit mixed. I support them, and I’ve seen some amazing schools, but the movement seems a very fragile thing to me. It could become overregulated and unionized — and thus essentially worthless — in the blink of an eye. But if tended properly, it could remake public education. I support strong accountability measures within the charter-school movement, but only because it’s so fragile. It can’t afford any failures, politically.

Ideally, I’d like to see a healthy mixture of charters, vouchers and as few traditional public schools as possible (and, of course, private schools). In that context, choice would serve as its own accountability. It’s not democratic accountability. But we don’t have nice cars, refrigerators, computers and cheeseburgers because of democracy. We have them because of the market.

P.S.: The point from Eduwonk that perplexed me the most, and that moved me to write, was the idea that the Catholic schools’ trouble was an argument against vouchers. That these schools are having financial trouble, if anything, is an argument for why we need vouchers sooner rather than later (before the schools have all closed). It says nothing about the quality of the schools.

Eduwonk says that this Samuel Freedman column in The New York Times — which discusses the financial problems Catholic schools are having and the fact that they haven’t learned to be good fundraisers — raises questions about the efficacy of vouchers as a way to keep Catholic schools open.

The only sentence in the article that deals with vouchers is this:

And one can only speculate about whether the prospect of tuition vouchers, a cause championed by former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, contributed to a lassitude in Catholic education circles, a belief that soon enough tax dollars would bail schools out.

Huh.

Yes, that does raise some questions. Mainly: Why does Andrew Rotherham find it necessary to spit on the idea of vouchers every chance he gets? For someone who claims to be led by the facts and the outcomes in education, he’s awfully opposed to any significant experiment with vouchers for what can only be ideological reasons.

Anyway, the Freedman column raises no questions whatsoever about the efficacy of vouchers as a means of propping up the Catholic schools. Quite simply, if Catholic schools in New York City haven’t gotten their fundraising act together, it’s probably not because they think vouchers are right around the corner — unless they’re idiots who have never heard of the United Federation of Teachers.

Nor would vouchers or tax credits for Catholic schools obviate the need for those schools to raise money. Charter schools get government funding, but the good ones still have well-organized fundraising campaigns.

Show me Catholic schools shutting down in a city with school vouchers, and I’ll reconsider my wild guess that directing more money to Catholic schools is likely to help with their financial problems.

I’ve recently come across an interesting e-mail, from a reliable source, giving a bit of extra insight into The New York Times’ hit piece on charter schools last summer.

It’s just one data point, but it does tell something important about the credulousness of Times reporters when it comes to their favored sources — in this case, the teachers unions on the education beat.

For those who don’t remember (how embarrassed are you???), here’s what happened last summer: On August 17, 2004, the Times ran a lead story by education reporter Diana Jean Schemo under the headline “CHARTER SCHOOLS TRAIL IN RESULTS, U.S. DATA REVEALS.” The story was about an analysis of federal education data conducted by the American Federation of Teachers and fed to the Times by said group. One thing the Times didn’t disclose to its readers, however, was that the AFT, along with the NEA, is the major opponent of charter schools nationwide.

Now, there were other problems with the story — mainly that it claimed charter school students are underperforming other public school students, when that’s a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

But let’s focus on the narrow point here: The Times pretended in its story that the AFT is neutral toward charter schools. In the story, the group was described as such: “The organization has historically supported charter schools but has produced research in recent years raising doubts about the expansion of charter schools.”

A charter school group challenged this and contacted Times assistant managing editor Allan Siegal for a response. Siegal contacted education editor Suzanne Daley, who, in turn, got this e-mailed response from Schemo:

Hi Suzanne,

I’ve gone back over the AFT’s history and positions on charters, which I’d first looked into in reporting the original story on the NAEP results.

As we discussed, there is no AFT resolution against charters as an institution, and the union’s taken no formal position condemning or praising charters. In New York City, the local affiliate recently hired Jonathan Gyurko, from Joel Klein’s office, to see about opening one or two charters there. In Texas, the state AFT affiliate lobbied for and helped open two charters, the Prairie Creek Academy in Dallas and the Raul Yzaguerre School in Houston. The NEA, the larger teacher’s union, has also co-sponsored with local affiliates the opening of charters in three states, Connecticut, Colorado and Hawaii. AFT members work in charter schools in New York, Michigan, Texas, Philadelphia and Boston (where they are in quasi-charters known as pilot schools). The AFT and the NEA also represent more than a third of all teachers working in California charters, particularly those formed as conversions from existing public schools.

Historically, Al Shanker was an early advocate of charter schools. His NYT column, “Where We Stand,” first pushed for them in July 1988, saying, “American education and business face the same problem–how to change their institutions so that they are more effective.” His essay was proposing charters as a way to free up teachers and administrators to try innovative approaches to instruction, based on resolutions adopted by more than 3,000 delegates at the AFT’s convention that year. Shanker predicted politically stormy seas ahead, and wished “safe passage to charters.” Through the 1990s, he wrote more columns in our paper supporting charters.

In 2002, the AFT produced an evaluation called “Do Charter Schools Measure Up?,” that essentially concluded that they had so far fallen short of their promise, and advised caution on the part of states to opening new charters, and better oversight.

In fairness, it should also be said that the AFT, from Shanker’s day on, has produced a load of studies regularly decrying the poor performance of regular public schools, not just charters, on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In other reports, the AFT has sometimes criticized, and sometimes praised, charters run by Edison Schools, the nation’s largest charter school operator.

So in short, I think it would have been inaccurate and misleading to describe the AFT as ideological opponents of charter schools, as the charter school supporters contended in the aftermath of our story. Our description of the group’s position was brief but accurate: “The organization has historically supported charter schools but has produced research in recent years raising doubts about the expansion of charter schools.”

It’s not more black and white than that, as far as I can tell.

Best,

-Diana.

Now, Schemo’s assertions here are not factually inaccurate, but they are selective to a fault. No one who covers education could possibly be unaware that the teachers unions are not just the major, but perhaps the only, institutional opponents of charter schools (public school administrators would perhaps come in second). In every state where charter schools have been established, it has been over the objections and fierce lobbying of the AFT and the NEA.

To claim that the AFT is neutral because once upon a time Al Shanker was in charge, or because they’ve supported the opening of a few specific schools in states that already have charter school laws, well — it’s just laughable.

I know this sounds like splitting hairs, but it is not a minor point. The AFT is the group that conducted the flawed analysis and it is the group that placed the story with the Times, looking for just the hit-piece that it got — on the front page, in the lead space, during a presidential election.

That the Times tried to obscure the motives of its source is undeniable and inexcusable. Schemo’s justification sounds plausible to a layman (perhaps), but it doesn’t pass the smell test to anyone in the know.

Eduwonk notices the growing trend of conservatives calling out Bush on school choice.

There’s a reason. He does suck on choice.

Some anti-charter dead-enders in Niagara still seem to be fighting the bad fight.

But this article from the Buffalo News makes it seem pretty clear that all the necessary people are on board in the Niagara Falls City school district to see the new charter school through.

This story about black conservative talk-show host Armstrong Williams is certifiably insane. I’ll let Eduwonk sum up what he dubs, “Strong-Arm Gate”:

Punchline: The Department of Education paid commentator/columnist/talk show host Armstrong Williams $240K to promote No Child Left Behind in his various media outlets.

Yeah, that about sums it up. Amazing.

My first thought (aside from, “Where the hell’s my check?”) is that this will be fodder for the usual haters of black conservatives. The charge has always been that these folks have sold their souls to white people, right? Well, as this post noted by Jonah Goldberg at NRO shows, the Armstrong incident will just serve as confirmation for such bigots. (Note: The blogger in question may himself be black — Jonah says he’s hearing as much on NRO — but that changes not a thing.)

My second thought is that this is more than a minor embarrassment for the Bush administration. This could be illegal.

While it may be a stretch, here’s what I’ve found in regard to government laws against propaganda. Apparently, appropriations from Congress come with a “publicity and propaganda” clause as a standard feature.

This General Accounting Office report on the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s propaganda activities has some info (legal citations omitted here — if you want them, follow the link above):

“No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.”

Our research indicates that Congress has imposed this same prohibition, using identical language, on the use of all appropriations for publicity or propaganda purposes annually since 1951. So far, Congress has not defined the phrase “publicity or propaganda.” Over the years, we have struggled to give meaning to this limitation while simultaneously balancing the right and duty of agencies to inform the public regarding their activities and programs. We have previously identified a number of activities that are subject to this restriction, including covert propaganda and self-aggrandizement.

One of the activities banned under the publicity or propaganda prohibition involves what is referred to as covert propaganda, that is, an agency’s production and distribution of materials that do not identify the agency, or indeed the government, as their source, thereby misleading those who refer to these materials. For example, in 1987, the State Department violated the prohibition when it paid consultants to prepare and publish newspaper articles and op-ed pieces supporting the administration’s Central America policy, and presented these materials “as the ostensible position of persons not associated with the government.” These publications violated the restriction because they were “misleading as to their origin.”

Sounds a bit similar to the Armstrong case, no?

Now, I’m not sure what the GAO or Congress as a whole can do, other than embarrass the administration and tell them to cut it out. But an investigation is certainly warranted.

Also, it’s hardly likely that this is an isolated incident. Who else is on the government payroll? They may want to come clean before the witch-hunt.

And, lastly, shouldn’t Williams give the money back?

So, to follow up on the saga of the Niagara Charter School (which I’ve followed here and here), I’ll say that — for now — things are looking up for Pastor Richard Hague and the community he’s trying to serve.

To catch up the stragglers, The Post in December went after the New York state Board of Regents for allowing politics to get in the way of approving a sterling application for a new charter school in economically depressed Niagara County, in upstate New York.

In particular, we have been critical of the school district officials in Niagara Falls City and the councilwoman from the area, Francine DelMonte, who have put pressure on the chancellor of the Regents, a man named Robert Bennett (who’s up for reappointment this year).

My columns on the matter, and The Post’s editorials, have caused quite a stir. The Regents — and those trying to manipulate the Regents for their own purposes — aren’t used to so much daylight. Francine DelMonte even had a lawyer (who, suspiciously, shared her last name) send The Post a blustering letter threatening a libel lawsuit over my reporting.

And now, Chancellor Bennett is apparently telling the Buffalo News that the Regents should — pending the outcome of a “community forum” on January 13 — move to approve the charter early this year.

Says the Buffalo News, in an editorial:

Unless the Regents hear something egregious [at the forum], Bennett believes the board will move ahead and approve the charter school.

Now, I’m an avowed skeptic of the upcoming forum. I’ve called it a kangaroo court in The Post, since it is bound to be packed with union goons. So, we’ll be watching to see if Bennett makes good on his word.

The Regents already have all the relevant information about this school. New York’s charter-school authorization process is quite rigorous, and the proposed Niagara Charter School already underwent its rigors. So any backtracking at this point would be sheer political cowardice on the part of the Regents.

So, to recap: district thugs have threatened members of a proposed charter school’s board of directors; petty legislative thug Assemblywoman Francine DelMonte has threatened the chancellor of the Regents (politically) and is now threatening a reporter (me, legally) and New York’s teachers unions perpetually threaten the Regents and the legislators who appoint them.

These are the obstacles faced by a lone pastor in upstate New York, trying to start a school outside of the union monopoly. It’s quite a world here in the Empire State. I hope that for the kids of Niagara Falls the year will have a happy beginning.

Eduwonk lets the New York Times off a bit easy here, about their latest charter-schools piece.

Now, it’s true that the Times scaled back their planned hit piece on charters — I suspect, in no small part because The Post called their bluff before they could write it.

Nevertheless, the Times still does its worst to distort the facts. I’ll let The Post’s editorial speak for itself as to the importance of the recent DOE report on our understanding of how charter schools are doing — basically, the report is from a handful of states, is based on old data and doesn’t compare apples to apples.

So, what are the problems with the Times piece?

For one, there’s its absolutely remarkable recap of this August’s union-planted, discredited, front-page slime job on charter schools, as such:

The [recent] study follows several recent efforts to track charter performance, including a report by the American Federation of Teachers, which showed students in charter schools lagging behind their public school peers on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Advocates of charter schools, including Education Secretary Rod Paige, criticized that report for generalizing about charter schools, which offer extremely varied educational programs in states from Massachusetts to Oregon.

That’s an exceedingly odd way of saying, “We pulled a fast one on you in August by not admitting what even the union’s report had to admit: All differences between charter schools and other public schools disappeared when you accounted for the fact that charter schools take more poor and minority students.”

But, we can’t expect honesty from the Times on education policy, now can we?

And then, the Times finally gets around to reporting a months-old, extraordinarily thorough study, by a Harvard education economist, showing that charter schools are improving kids’ test scores — and pretty significantly, at that.

Well, I’m glad they finally got that one out there — even if they did it by burying it in another story.

Note to Times readers: They are lying to you when it comes to education. Read the Washington Post, The New York Post or Eduwonk when you want to know the truth on the subject.

New York City’s teachers union, the United Federation of Teachers, seems to blame a certain “New York Post columnist,” at least in part, for the fact that it can’t re-up its horrible, innovation-crushing, principal-smothering contract:

[UFT President] Weingarten said that a New York Times article in mid-October created the false impression that the city and the UFT were on the cusp of an agreement. The article created a hypothetical deal that merged the union’s wage demands and management’s demands.

That article, she said, spurred union opponents, including a New York Post columnist and City Council Education Committee Chair Eva Moskowitz, to exhort Mayor Bloomberg to stand up against the union and not to agree to any deal that did not gut the teachers contract.

Weingarten told the delegates that the union would not surrender its contract under any circumstances.

Well, I’m more than happy to take credit, now that Ms. Weingarten mentions it — along with the lovely and talented Eva Moskowitz and the entire editorial page of The New York Post, which has stood opposed to the current set up for years.

Bloomberg came into office promising education reform, and the single most important thing he has to accomplish in that area is to give principals — and teachers, for that matter — the ability to do their jobs without a book-thick contract telling them what to do every minute of the day and who they can hire and fire.

The union is weaker than it’s ever been, I believe. Bloomberg should stand strong. And a lot of people in this city are going to make noise if he doesn’t.

Does the first lady know about this?

Rod Paige’s departure from the Bush cabinet, and his replacement by educrat Margaret Spellings, is very bad news for proponents of urban school reform. Paige understood the importance of choice, even if he wasn’t allowed to enforce the choice provisions of No Child Left Behind — meant to give kids in persistently failing schools the right to move to non-failing schools.

Now, the status quo ex ante will obtain. Take New York City, for example. This year, Schools Chancellor Joel Klein and Mayor Bloomberg have effectively decided to ignore the law’s choice provision, allowing kids to rot in failing schools and telling them that “capacity” problems prevent them from having any schools to which to transfer.

Of course, “capacity” is not a valid excuse under NCLB — it’s just another way of saying that the administration is going to protect middle-class schools, or, more to the point, middle-class parents who they don’t want mobbing City Hall.

Some — like Education Committee Chairwoman Eva Moskowitz and members of the State Board of Regents — have been trying to force the city’s hand on this, and get more kids out of failing schools. But they’ve had no leverage. The federal Department of Education wasn’t going to sanction New York City, so Bloomberg and Klein could ignore the law.

However, for a time it seemed that a second Bush term might hold the promise of an unbound Paige, ready to get tough with New York’s weak-willed politicians. Now, that hope is no more.

A note here, however: I should make clear that I disagree with NCLB on its most basic premise, that the federal government should be involved in local educational issues. But if any part of the law ever had a chance of working, it was the choice provision. In some places, including New York City, it has, at the very least, provided some pressure to create more charter schools. Now, even that benefit may be neutralized, as choice no longer seems to hold any place in Bush’s education agenda.

Perhaps Paige will involve himself with the choice movement now from outside the administration.

By the way: Doesn’t this guy look great for 71? He was by The Post’s offices earlier this year. We all thought he was in his fifties. Best of luck to him.

And, last New York City teachers contract item, I swear, Bloomberg may come to regret this statement, about caving on the contract, reported in the Times:

Look, we are not going to sacrifice reform for political expediency. I can’t imagine anybody that knows me after all the three years in office that thinks that I would ever do that.

Well, I really hope and pray that he’s telling the truth. And, if he is, I’ll be the first one to praise him for letting talks break down or for getting some significant concessions.

However, nothing I’m hearing from sources close to the talks leads me to believe he’s telling the truth. So, I’m just going to file this little nugget away until it’s time to have some fun with it.