THE MARKETING OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

In the Bay Area and across the country, charter schools, known for their aggressive marking campaign and recruitment techniques, are speaking at churches, canvassing neighborhoods and convincing parents that they are offering not only an alternative to traditional public school but also the golden ticket to academic success.

Public schools, whose budgets depend on the number of students enrolled, are under a lot of pressure to retain students. That may not be all bad if their efforts improve school services and help maintain high standards. However, funds are not well spent if districts must resort to spending their resources on marketing and litigation rather than better facilities, smaller class sizes, enrichment classes and outreach specialists. Case in point is Bullis Charter School vs. Los Altos School District. They have been in litigation for years. In May of 2003, The Los Altos School District Board of Trustees rejected Bullis’ school petition citing “the petition’s lack of program focus, lack of sufficient planning time, lack of familiarity with legal requirements, unrealistic financial and operational plan, lack of necessary expertise and lack of a viable facilities plan.” In September of that year, Santa Clara County Board of Education approved the charter for Bullis Charter School. Since that time, much of the legal wrangling has been over campus space.

Education scholars are also leery of charter schools’ propaganda and the promises they make. Diane Ravitch is considered one of America's leading educational historians. She was a Research Professor of Education at New York University and U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education in President George H.W. Bush’s administration. In her latest book, “Reign of Error” she warns us not to be persuaded by a false, charter school-constructed narrative touting a public school crisis. The real objective of this misinformation is the privatization of public education.

In the book she reveals examples of some charter school’s unfair admissions policies and enrollment procedures that allow them to grant admission only to students they believe will be academically successful. “The charter movement has become a vehicle for privatization of large swaths of public education, ending democratic control of public schools and transferring them to private management,” she stated. “The charters seek to compete, not collaborate, with public schools.” She also references the widespread criticism that charters enroll many fewer students with disabilities than do traditional public schools.

Having choice is good when it raises the bar of performance and customer service in any organization and that includes educational ones. However, diverting tax dollars away from public schools towards charters that are not held to the same legal requirements as public schools does nothing to reduce the inequalities between well-resourced and poorly-resourced public schools. In fact, it further depletes lower-income schools by targeting their students. Charter schools’ success may come at the cost of dismantling our country’s public education system and our children’s fundamental right to a free, quality and public education.

Dr. Ravtich, in her book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How testing and Choice Are undermining Education states the argument succinctly. “Going to school is not the same as going shopping. Parents should not be burdened with locating a suitable school for their child. They should be able to take their child to the neighborhood public school as a matter of course and expect that it has well-educated teachers and a sound educational program.”

Contact Margaret Lavin at elementarydays@gmail.com.