Is there a charter school backlash? Recent events in places like Georgia, New York City and Rhode Island make you wonder. And if so, why and what to do about it? Hint: Don’t do what Ohio’s considering doing. Those are the questions and issues that this week’s School of Thought column @TIME.com takes a look at.
Is it the best of times or end times for public charter schools? 4,000 charter school leaders, teachers, advocates, and policymakers will gather in Atlanta later this month at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ annual conference. The gathering of upstarts is now larger than many long-standing traditional education groups can muster, but in states and cities across the country, charter schools are facing increased political pressure and scrutiny. In Georgia, the state’s supreme court just ruled that the arrangements for charter schools are unconstitutional. Welcome to town!
You are right—the uneven quality of charter schools does invite political retribution.
Ultimately, I think charters are here to stay and will expand. Two factors may propel their growth:
(1) Cost: Charter employees are not govt employees/pensioners; and
(2) Fairness: Diverse kids need diverse schools. (Some kids flourish in hierarchical, rote environments, and some flourish in latitudinarian, progressive school settings. Excepting magnet schools, govt does not do diverse schools.
I would argue the exact opposite is true – the anecdotal success stories of charters are what is keeping the whole enterprise afloat (and the monied interests that are involved). Films like “Waiting for Superman” and articles written about the best charter schools are held up as examples of how the public education system is failing and could be saved if teachers and families would just work a little harder. Charters are mainly a distraction from the truly important debates we need to have about how to reform the American educational system. These success stories have kept the idea going long after it has proven itself not to be the answer.
Either way, looking at charters as monolithic is dangerous and highly misleading. Just as there are good charters and bad charters, there are good charter systems and bad charter systems. Ironically, charters that were initially used to help poor and disadvantaged students in highly segregated Northern cities are now being used as a tool for resegregation throughout the South.
“Charters are mainly a distraction from the truly important debates we need to have about how to reform the American educational system.”
And those debates would be… what?
“Ironically, charters that were initially used to help poor and disadvantaged students in highly segregated Northern cities are now being used as a tool for resegregation throughout the South.”
Really–what evidence have you of this? If students gain entry via lottery, how exactly can re-segregation occur?
It’s great to enjoy the educational read on the opinions of individuals and/or educators regarding charter schools. Coincidentally, I was most recently an early childhool teacher at a charter school in the DFW area and am currently searching for employment since the school is now closed, permanently. Except for teachers receiving less pay, fewer benefits, and greater flexibility in the classroom, I really don’t see the huge difference in charter and regular the regular ISD school (according to conversations with teacher-friends in the surrounding ISD’s). I’ll keep reading….
And those debates would be… what?
We should be more worried about modernizing the way teaching is done in the classrooms to relate to the way jobs are going to be in the future. The entire education system needs to be reformed because it is based on an older model of employment. Students need to work effectively in groups, use technology, and have differentiated instruction for those who learn differently. Schools should be aligned with the standards of universities and employers in the areas they serve.
Charters mainly do “skill and drill” for longer hours than public schools. Its not innovative, its more of the same. Twenty years ago, charter schools seemed to hold promise for innovation. Given that it hasn’t happened yet, its hard to imagine it will anytime soon. We also need to make teaching more of a profession, and the lessened teaching licensure standards of charters harms this key movement.
The list goes on and on: improved school funding, teacher pay, improved and increased access to Pre-K programs, changes to the length of the school day. If charters haven’t helped yet, they aren’t going to. The real reason why the movement has kept going? $
what evidence have you of this?
My primary experience is in North Carolina, so here is that evidence:
http://gayleturner.net/clotfelter_nc_reseg.pdf
Here is a larger report by the UCLA Civil Rights Project which is led by Gary Orfield, the foremost expert on segregation in the U.S.:
http://blogs.uscannenberg.org/julia_james/2010/04/ucla-report-says-charters-are.html
In spite of the lottery system employed by many charter schools, charters often do not have to accept students wtih disabilities, students on free and reduced lunch, or students who need transportation. All of these limitations, which do not exist for public schools, lead to increased segregation.
This makes evertyhing so completely painless.