Bray states up front that he is a long time public school advocate. He says, in part, "I am a fan of public education. I think it is one of the pillars of our nation. From kindergarten through high school, I attended public schools in Albany. I appreciate what I learned academically as well as the civic and social values I developed." He goes on to talk about his parents (his father a school teacher, his mother a state Department of Education employee). In other words, he is defending his turf.
He then says, "Charter schools are run with public money and are generally exempt from curriculum rules and teachers unions. I see charter school advocates as more against teachers unions than for educating needy students."
It is an interesting hypothesis. However, his key evidence is the writing of Diane Ravitch, the former charter supporter and U.S. Education Department official who now opposes charter schools.
How any of the evidence for or against charter school success translates into charter school supporters begin more against teachers unions than for educating needy students is beyond me. It's readily apparent to me that all charter school advocates are very much in favor of educating children. In fact, I know a large percentage of the charter school leaders in Colorado, and almost all they talk about is educating kids. I've also know some of the state charter association leaders and have been to the past two national charter school conferences as a speaker. Many of us want reform in the unions, and I know some who are anti-union, but the goal is to develop excellent educational models.
One of the statistics used by Bray is that charter schools often have 50 to 60 percent fail to finish. I'm not sure where he gets those figures, as he doesn't tell us. It's also not clear if that is fail to finish school or fail to finish in the charter school. Could it be that some charter schools hold students to such a high standard that they choose to return to a traditional public school? I know of one school in my city for which that is exactly the case. Perhaps if high expectations were normal, then charter schools wouldn't have that problem.
Bray also cites Ravitch stating that, "they [charter school supporters] also fail to recognize that the best predictor of low academic performance is poverty -- not bad teachers." This is true if we look at the traditional public schools that Bray supports. However, there are many charter schools that have been successful with high poverty students. Mr. Bray doesn't address that. In his book, The Learning Leader, Douglas B. Moore discusses this very issue and gives examples of why school success is much more dependent on what adults do in the building than on what kids enter with (and that's not just in charter schools).
Reading Mr. Bray's opinion piece, I found that the arguments in favor of the traditional public system were really based on his long term relationship with it. He liked his education. His parents liked their job in education. He sees the public school system as a community builder. However, most of those arguments are irrelevant. There are many of us who were not served well by the public education systems, and we do not believe that our children or the children of others are served well by the traditional system. However, our tax dollars are taken from us to support a system that we believe needs real reform, not just a few improvements here and there. To deny us our rights, the anti-charter school people somehow distort and disfigure the information about the failing public schools such that even good charter schools all of a sudden look bad. It's as if they have substituted a curvy fun house mirror for a clear and true mirror.
In order to uphold their agenda to support the current ineffective system, they've lumped all charter schools together into one pot. That way they won't have to make arguments against the best charter schools. They won't have to examine the best charter schools and replicate their practices. They won't have to hold teachers to a higher standard. They can continue to make excuses.
Just as Bray qualifies his arguments by saying that public schools aren't perfect, I'll qualify my argument. Not all charter schools are cut from the same mold. It is important that chartering organizations do a better job up front with making sure that charter starters know what they are doing and what they are up against. It is important as charters reach the next stage that we begin to look at why the best charter schools are as successful as they are. However, let's not use children as pawns on either side of the fence. Let's look at the best of class in education and make better schools. And if some of that best in class education comes from charter schools (and we know it does), then let's not claim checkmate when all we've really done is taken a few pawns.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have not seen the movie yet, but here is one person who agrees that the school system uses children as pawn. Have you seen The Cartel by Bob Bowdon?
3 comments:
Dear Doug,
In preparing this comment I referenced Paul Bray's opinion and actually found it to be quite accurate. To defend my own turf, I am a supporter of charter schools, work in a charter school, and hope to open a charter school of my own one day. The second of those previous points is why I will refrain from identifying myself here.
The truth of the matter, and a fact that might help charter advocates if it were acknowledged (at least more widely), is that there are terrible, horrible charter schools. Bray does a fine job of making his point, which is, charter schools are experiments conducted using public funds, and when those experiments fail, children are left in at least as bad a position as they were before, if not worse, and taxpayers paid for all the lab's equipment and materials to boot. In my experience, this is 100% true.
I have, first hand, seen completely unqualified teachers hired and promoted within charter schools. I have seen state and school’s own charter curriculum and graduation requirements waived or ignored. I have seen charter law violations. I have seen children put last, and the capriciousness of adults first. This continues because charter schools are very "in" right now. No politician or legislator wants to be the one to tighten regulations, and there is scarcely enough money to fund the charter schools, let alone put into place the armies that would be required to monitor and regulate them. And so when regulators do find wrongdoing it takes years and years to establish a viable case, and when they do, charter advocates cry "anti-charter."
I understand exactly what Bray means in his article when he says the children are being used as "pawns." Anybody off the street can start a charter school, receive the federal and state funding which then they are entitled to as public school and funnel hundreds of innocent kids and their unsuspecting well-meaning parents through a garbage program for years and years before anyone is the wiser. It’s not about being against charter schools, it’s about being against bad schools.
At the very least, and in line with your point about examining the best charter schools and replicating their practices, a better system would be to require best practices. Charter school board members and leaders should be forced to meet and share their practices and their results at least with each other. Right now too many charter schools exist in a vacuum devoid of external inspection or accountability. Charter leader's desire to “show off” could also mitigate the perverted incentive some schools have of keeping their good practices to themselves like a “secret recipe.”
Thanks for your reply. Perhaps I did not do a good job making my point. I think that Bray's main point is that charter school advocates use kids as pawns in a battle of political ideology. My point is that charter opponents use kids in a battle of political ideology.
You are right. There are horrendous stories of charter abuses. I was not trying to ignore that.
I was trying to point out that the charter opponent's real reason for opposing charters is rarely the actual abuses. It is really an ideological opposition to charter schools and that uses the abuses to avoid having to deal with the real issues, especially to avoid the question of what to do with practices of successful charter schools.
As I said, perhaps I did a poor job. I'll try to be clearer next time.
Anonymous, I'd just add that Ravitch and Bray talk about the fact that the biggest indicator of success or failure is socio-economic status. No doubt there are things about socio-economic status that make education more difficult. The real fact is that schools that believe and act as if adults in the building make more difference are succeeding. The current system uses socio-economic status as an excuse rather than a factor to work with.
Post a Comment