ANSWER: When you’re a liberal.
I’m feeling extra snarky today Mr Bryant. Sorry for that, but I just couldn’t let this article go unanswered. Much of what is written here advocates the same kind of liberal mission creep that has increased the cost per student without improving performance.
or, put another way…
Work best for whom? Our children are not mindless automatons that can be programmed. Some are visual learners, some auditory, some tactile. Boys learn different from girls, children from poor families have fewer resources, children of immigrants are hamstrung both linguistically and culturally. There is no one-size-fits-all strategy that works for every child. This is why Marxist Socialism fails and why we must always reject it. Rejecting the current Marxist Socialist model of mass education is not a crazy new fad. It’s vital to our survival. Besides I trust parents to have better insight into their child’s individual needs than some faceless bureaucracy.
Indeed, wouldn’t it be nice if the federal government would stick to it’s Constitutionally constrained roles and leave education to the states and localities? Maybe we wouldn’t run up a $20 trillion debt while simultaneously churning out another generation of useful idiots. Maybe instead of retooling our schools to meet standardized tests they could help defend local school boards from unwanted NEA interference.
School choice is one of the rare political initiatives that has fans on both the right and left.
Well God knows we can’t have that! Circle the wagons everyone, if we were to agree to even this incredibly minor adjustment to policy, it might lead to widespread approval or worse… (whispered) national unity.
Sooooo… BURN THEM ALL DOWN! I mean if we can’t outperform every public school every time… what’s the point in trying. By the way, why are we even talking about Public Charter Schools in a school choice article? Oh yeah, because… Capitalism.
Underlying school choice is a faith in the workings of a competitive market to generate better outcomes.
Online charter schools, dominated by for-profit companies such as Pearson and K12 Inc., have had an “overwhelming negative impact,” according to recent studies, with the majority of students showing “far weaker academic growth in both math and reading compared to their traditional public school peers.”
Uh…. Because they’re ONLINE! Of course they’re not as successful as a school that offers collaboration, hands on learning, and has a live person there in the room with the students. By the way, who is enrolled in Online Charter Schools? Kids with behavior problems maybe? Mightn’t that impact their performance vs traditional public schools.
The center champions school choice in its rhetoric, but its stated endpoint for education policy is “no government schools,” a stance that favors the elimination of choices rather than their expansion.
How did you come to that conclusion? Better yet, Why is the government involved in education at all? Seems like the ultimate monopoly and a huge roadblock to anyone hoping to enter the industry. Which might explain why the public school system is so impenetrable to innovation.
Every school is motivated to avoid accommodation for students with “problems.” Ever heard of Ritalin? Some kids nead it, but not one in ten! That’s not a student problem, that’s an accommodation problem. Ever heard of an IEP (individual education plan)? Shouldn’t every kid get an individualized education plan? I can’t imagine teaching adult learners without first developing a specific plan based on the student’s learning background. Imagine if the DMV made you retake your driving test every time you renewed your license? Or worse, let’s just assume that by the time you’re a certain age you should know that material and give you a license.
When education policy is set by the belief that any nontraditional school is a better choice than a traditional public school simply because it is not operated by a government entity, then ideology has overtaken evidence-based reasoning.
First of all that’s awfully hyperbolic. Secondly, there are über-liberal precincts where entire faculties hold the most outrageous views unchallenged and present them to their students. Thirdly, what about districts with such low expectations of scholastic achievement and non-existent standards of behavior that nobody is learning. Wouldn’t anything be better?
Studies show, however, that charter schools and other school choice programs, whatever the intention behind their authorization, can also reinforce segregation.
Because in public schools integration is more important than education. Remember MLK’s dream, that we be judged not by the color of our skin but by “the content of our character?” Under segregation a POC would be denied entry into a Charter school merely by the color of their skin. Today that’s not the case. Teaching to the lowest common denominator is no way to achieve educational excellence.
So, sure. We should avoid creating policies that “encourage profiteering” but earning a profit is not profiteering. We shouldn’t “advance an ideology” in our schools, tell that to the NEA/DoE cabal. Nor should we return to the days of racial segregation, but “economic segregation” is just another Marxist proletarian argument.