Richard Cohen doesn't understand
why people are so down on the rich. The Washington Post columnist
(3/18/14) writes:
The rich are incessantly accused of
being slyly manipulative and self-serving. For instance, they support charter
schools. Apparently, there is nothing worse.
I am mystified. Charter schools are
not private schools. They are free public schools open to any student, usually
by lottery. Some rich people support them, provide funds for special programs
and, in return, get vilified for their efforts.
"They're helping poor
children," Cohen insists, while opponents of charter schools, he suspects,
"would rather hurt the rich than help the poor."
But are charter schools really
helping poor students–or any sutudents? "Say what you will about New York
or Washington charters, but by the usual measurements–test scores, etc.–they are succeeding, some of
them stunningly so," the columnist writes–contrasting them with "the
old system," in which "failure was a certainty."
The link on "test scores"
goes to a Washington Post article (7/30/13) headlined "D.C. Students Reach
New Heights in Annual Standardized Tests." Note that the subject of the
headline is "D.C. students," because the story reports gains by
students in both charter schools and the "old system" alike.
But not quite alike: If you look at
test scores over the past seven years, you see
that D.C. charter schools have raised test scores by an average of 15.o
percent–while the old system, where "failure was a certainty," has
raised them by 17.2 percent. In other words, the "usual measurement"
offered by Cohen as proof of the value of charter schools offers no evidence
that charter school students are any better off at all.
But what about the "some"
charter schools that are "succeeding…stunningly"? Cohen mentions
Harlem Village Academies, which "has been raising test scores–in other
words, giving student after student a better chance of succeeding."
There's a special reason, though, that Harlem Village is able to raise scores:
Its classes have attrition rates of up to 75 percent. That's not so much
"student after student" as it is "student but not student or
student or student": It's not hard to have test scores go up and up if you
get rid of any students who look they might bring the average down.
But what about the good intentions
of the rich people who are funding charter schools–people like Carl Icahn, who
went to Cohen's high school? Don't they count for anything? Cohen again:
When the
rich insist that lower taxes would do wonders for the poor, the orphaned and
the grievously widowed, I detect the faint aroma of self-interest. But when they
plump for charter schools, the only ulterior motive you can find is that down
the road, years from now, society will benefit and so, as night follows day,
will they. I can live with that.
Maybe I'm not as familiar with rich
people spending money just so "society will benefit," since I don't
know Carl Icahn even "just casually." But it's not hard to find an
alternative explanation (AlterNet, 2/15/13):
Thanks to a little discussed law passed in 2000, at the
end of Bill Clinton’s presidency, banks and equity funds that invest in charter
schools and other projects in underserved areas can take advantage of a very
generous tax credit — as much as 39 percent — to help offset their expenditure
in such projects. In essence, that credit amounts to doubling the amount of
money they have invested within just seven years. Moreover, they are allowed to
combine that tax credit with job creation
credits and other types of credit, as well collect interest payments on the
money they are lending out — all of which can add up to far more than double in
returns. This is, no doubt, why many big banks and equity funds are so invested in
the expansion of charter schools. There is big money being made here — because
investment is nearly a sure thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment