The main problem with public education system in this country is twofold: local funding and the one size fits all approach. Local funding means that schools in poor districts are underfunded. One size fits all means that every student is forced to take the same standardized curriculum and the same standardized tests - regardless of his/her scholastic aptitude and interests. That discourages many students who have benefited from alternative curricula (vocational, arts, etc.)
The only way to have an alternative curriculum in this country is private or charter school. For minority students, this has an added benefit of insulating them form negative influence of their peers.
However, an often missed fact in those debates is the occupational position of teachers. Private or charter schools typically mean lower pay, no unions, and employment at will. I am fairly certain that the Repug assault on public education is motivated by a desire to break teacher's unions and downgrade teaching profession rather than to help the kids, especially minority kids.
For that reason, I am really "on the fence" on this issue. On the one hand, I think that the one-size-fits-all philosophy behind public education sucks, and charter schools do offer an antidote to it. Otoh, I do support teachers and thier unions, and I think charter schools would be very detrimental to both.
Wojtek
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> From Ken Libby at Schools Matter
> http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2009/11/from-vault_06.html
>
> This is part of an essay <
> http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-172292777/wave-future-why-charter.html>
> written in early 2008 by AEI/Fordham's Andy Smarick <
> http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/bio.cfm?id=483&name=Andy-Smarick&page_id=>,
> a former Bush II Domestic Policy Council member tasked with K-12 and higher
> education issues (my bolds):
>
> Here, in short, is one roadmap for chartering's way forward: First,
> commit to drastically increasing the *charter market share in a few
> select communities* until it is *the dominant system* and the
> district is reduced to a *secondary* provider. The target should be
> 75 percent. Second, choose the target communities wisely. Each
> should begin with *a solid charter base* (at least 5 percent market
> share), a policy environment that will enable growth *(fair funding,
> nondistrict authorizers, and no legislated caps*), and a favorable
> political environment (friendly elected officials and *editorial
> boards*, a positive experience with charters to date, and
> *unorganized opposition*). For example, in New York a concerted
> effort could be made to site in Albany or Buffalo a large percentage
> of the 100 new charters allowed under the raised cap. Other
> potentially fertile districts include *Denver*,*Detroit*,*Kansas
> City*, *Milwaukee*, *Minneapolis*, *New Orleans*, *Oakland*, and
> *Washington, D.C*.
>
> Third, secure proven operators to open new schools. To the greatest
> extent possible, growth should be driven by replicating successful
> local charters and recruiting high-performing operators from other
> areas. Fourth, engage key allies like *Teach For America, New
> Leaders for New Schools*, and* national and local foundations* to
> ensure the effort has the *human and financial capital* needed.
> Last, commit to rigorously assessing charter performance in each
> community and working with authorizers to close the charters that
> fail to significantly improve student achievement.
>
> In total, these strategies should lead to rapid, high-quality
> charter growth and the development of a *public school marketplace*
> marked by parental choice, the regular startup of new schools, the
> improvement of middling schools, the replication of high-performing
> schools, and the shuttering of low-performing schools.
>
> As chartering increases its *market share* in a city, the district
> will come under growing* financial pressure*. The district, despite
> educating fewer and fewer students, will still require a large
> administrative staff to process payroll and benefits, administer
> federal programs, and oversee special education. With a lopsided
> adult-to-student ratio, *the district's per-pupil costs will skyrocket.*
>
> *At some point along the district's path from monopoly provider to
> financially unsustainable marginal player*, the city's investors and
> stakeholders--taxpayers, foundations, business leaders, elected
> officials, and editorial boards--are likely to demand fundamental
> change. That is, eventually the financial crisis will become a
> political crisis. If the district has progressive leadership, one of
> two best-case scenarios may result. The district could voluntarily
> begin the *shift to an authorizer*, developing a new relationship
> with its schools and reworking its administrative structure to meet
> the new conditions. Or, believing the organization is unable to make
> this change, the district could gradually* transfer its schools to
> an established authorizer*.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>