NEA: "We’re not opposed to charter schools."
JB: Does that imply NEA is anti-charter?
BP: We’re not opposed to charter colleges. We have began charter colleges, and now we have participants in charter colleges. But charters want to have explicit standards. They want to be responsible, managed through democratically elected forums, and feature transparency. And –the most important situation ceaselessly overpassed – they want to be a part of the gadget, not separate. They will have to be a part of a gadget of training that makes certain each pupil will get what they want to thrive. We have examples of that.
Bryant does not ask about and Pringle does not volunteer information on explicit examples. Why? Because in the event that they exist, they’re so uncommon as to be meaningless.
NOT a number of the standards that Pringle says “charters need to have” are humane studying environments, non-penal tutorial methods, wealthy curriculums, professionally qualified lecturers and principals, librarians, counselors, or desegregated study rooms. Nor does she outline on this interview or in other places what “accountability” or “transparency” imply.
The reality is that NEA simplest cares about increasing club and accumulating the dues that participants pay every 12 months, with the false hope of slowing the bleeding out of public colleges educating. As lengthy as NEA and AFT stay loyalists to the DNC’s Clintonian contingent of paternalistic company reformers, each trainer will have to boycott those core companies of company enabling.