United Federation of Teachers boss, Michael Mulgrew, attacks charters and charter caps because charter schools do not serve equal numbers of low income children and he finds it "hard to comprehend" that South Bronx charter schools serve half the number of English Language Learners than their local traditional public counterparts.
I don't think Mr. Mulgrew is ignorant, but the answer to a lot of this is simple. The fact is that charter schools are schools of choice. Parents, not the city or the districts or the unions, choose whether or not to attend these schools. The reasons that some parents choose not to attend this charters may be very diverse or perhaps singular, such as transportation issues. However, this is no reason for the government to impose a rule, as Mulgrew suggests, that charter school numbers have to be equal regarding percentages of low income or ELL students.
First, the numbers Mulgrew cites show that these charters do have high levels of low income kids, just not equal to the local schools. 62% is a high free and reduced lunch population. It is still a big challenge. This does not mean that the methods used in those charter schools are invalid. In fact, if those charter schools prove more successful than the local public schools, it may simply mean that those schools nearby need to adopt the methods used by the charter schools. This isn't a war. The charter schools are meant to be schools that try new approaches so that traditional schools can learn from them.
Second, Mulgrew in complaining about inequality fails to mention that charter schools are at a distinct disadvantage in funding because they have to scrape for facilities--often spending their per pupil revenue on buildings. This takes away money from important day to day expenditures such as teacher's salaries and additional staffing. I don't know about these schools, but it's often been the case that charter schools are not provided with the funds that the district receives for ELL or Special Education. So, if we want to be equal, we'd need to correct those problems as well.
The fact is that "life is not fair." Equality is a great thing when we talk about rights and choice, but equality is not always the appropriate measure for a situation. If an employer merely divided the salary budget by the number of employees, that wouldn't be fair. (I suppose that some of my socialist readers would disagree on that point, but they'd be wrong and not are not a significant player in this debate anyway.)
What is fair is giving charter schools a fair chance to show whether or not they can succeed with the students who attend them. Complaining that a local public school can't educate children because they are poor or because their population has a somewhat higher percentage of poor students implies that poor students can't learn and that these schools haven't figured out how to teach poor children. This is exactly the reason that people have wanted charter schools.
I agree with Mr. Mulgrew that "we should be working together to ensure that this city provides all its children a high-quality education, no matter what type of school they attend." However, given the rest of his article, I find it difficult to believe that is what he really means. In any case, he is wrong that charter schools have to have equal numbers of disadvantaged kids to be valid educational facilities or display valid educational models.
Mulgrew also brings up the issues of privitization and high salaries, which are not relevant to this portion of his theme. In fact, one of the problems of the argument against privatization is that if someone really could come up with a quantum leap in educational method and success, we'd gladly pay that person millions of dollars (and we should). In addition, it's a smokescreen. The unions are making money off the education system and not providing value. The unions have the biggest conflict of interest in this debate of anyone. In addition, there are many private organizations that benefit from education. We already have highly paid consultants, book and supply publishers, and those selling the latest programs and curriculum. These people profit greatly from the public trough. To think that a charter leader or charter management company shouldn't make some financial gain is like saying that educational consultants shouldn't profit from their assistance to schools. The problem isn't the mere fact of profit. The problem is whether or not any of these management companies (or consultants, or curriculum providers) actually provide any value. It's not that I support management companies, especially any specific ones. I'm only saying that, in principle, there is little difference between a management company and the many others who are profiting from public education already. A management company simply does a number of those things and tries to do it better. They often produce curriculum, train teachers, provide operational and financial functions and advice. A good management company can be worth 25% of revenue.
Taking Mr. Mulgrew's argument to its natural conclusion would mean forcing children to go to schools that their parents haven't chosen. It would mean denying freedom to others. It would mean eliminating many aspects of innovation. Would it truly help all children receive a "high-quality education?" It's unlikely. On the other hand, it might save many union jobs, and after all, that's what unions are all about.
0 comments:
Post a Comment