Monday, May 10, 2010

The Education Omnibus Blog, Part I, Charter Schools.


I've been collecting articles from the newspaper that piss me off as regards opinions about the state of public education. I've been writing notes to myself about things I should comment on regarding the state of public education and the opinions of others about it. I have been doing this for about the last three weeks and somehow there has always been something more important to write about and all of this stuff has just piled up on my desk, creating a good bit of clutter. In an effort to clean up the mess and at least make my desk look a bit neater, if the inside of my head looks not one whit neater, I have chosen to attack every single issue that is pissing me off in one fell swoop. Thus, the Education Omnibus Blog cometh!

First thing on the omnibus agenda is charter schools. Those who would gut the public schools routinely push for charter schools, in the mistaken belief that charter schools do a better job of educating kids than do traditional public schools. There has been a push for many years now to open more and more charter schools and give kids a choice, so they don't have to attend those "failing neighborhood schools." Finally some realistic research has come to light that shows this simply not to be true. In an article in the New York Times on May 1, it was noted that 83% of all charter schools in the U.S. are no better than regular public schools.

I might suggest that if you were to separate public schools into categories, you would find a significant segment that does better than the normal public schools. A lot depends on the neighborhood and socio-economic status of the students who attend said public schools. A lot depends on the selective nature of the public school. Same with charter schools. The New York Times article noted that in charter schools, 55% of students are Hispanic or African-American (They actually said black, not African-American, but I changed this because my African-American students no longer wish to be called "black.") They noted that 1/3 of all charter school students qualify for free or reduced lunch. Guess what? In a great many of the schools that are considered "failing" 99-100% of all students are African-American or Hispanic. In a great many of these "failing" schools 99-100% of all students qualify for free or reduced lunch. Yet the charter schools don't do a damned bit better at educating kids than do the public schools.

More recently, on May 5, none other than Charles Murray weighed in on charter schools on the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times. Mr. Murray argues that kids are better off in charter schools, but the fact that all the judging is being done on the basis of standardized test scores is what's wrong. Mr. Murray argues that going traditional is better, and charter schools give a more traditional form of education in smaller classrooms, and that in and of itself is better. Mr. Murray argues that choice is good and test scores are something that doesn't matter. So how are we to measure the good that these schools are doing kids who otherwise would be attending public schools?

There are a number of people out there who also argue that kids in charter schools are simply safer, and thus better able to focus on learning. There are smaller classes. There is more focus on discipline. Their kids are better off. Guess what? That's true. However, the truth is also that those kids who cause trouble can be thrown out of these charter schools and end up back in the old neighborhood schools. The neighborhood public schools have no choice. They cannot just throw kids out into the streets. There is often no choice of where to send the worst and most disruptive kids. That is the public schools. Want to improve public schools? Don't fund charter schools. Fund alternative schools for disruptive, criminal, and seriously challenged public school students. The other students would benefit greatly, I guarantee, and we wouldn't need those charter schools for the good kids.

The bottom line here is that research shows that charter schools do no better than public schools, on the whole. Most of those that do, do so on the same basis as the better public schools. They have selective enrollments. Even within schools that have 99% minority and free and reduced lunch students there are a select group who are motivated and willing to do what is necessary to succeed. Teachers love these kids. Take all of those kids and put them in charter schools and of course the charter schools succeed.

What we are talking about is taking needed resources from the public schools and giving them to private concerns who do it cheaper by requiring longer hours and lower pay of employees. What we are talking about is giving employees lesser benefits. What we are talking about is taking the better students out of the neighborhood schools and leaving the worst students in the neighborhood schools. I'm sorry, but this is just the wrong approach to improving our public schools. First of all, we have to improve our society. There are huge stretches of every major city in this country where poverty is run amuck. Gangs and anti-social biases are the norm. If we truly want to fix the schools, we need to fix what's wrong with society that creates this urban blight and the blighted culture that occupies it.


No comments:

Post a Comment