A frequently tweeted topic last week was the fact that in order to have successful charter schools some bad charter schools also have to allowed, at least for a while. The tweet from those who do not like that fact was "Who pays the price?" Of course, the answer they give is that the children do with the implication that it isn't acceptable.
However, who pays the price for the continuing existence for inadequate traditional public schools? The answer is, again, the kids. That isn't acceptable either.
In other words, in this dichotomy, you have choose which is the least of bad of the bad options. Here is why I choose charter schools.
First, an alternative to both of the bad options is to "simply" improve the public schools. The reason that's not an option for me is that public schools have had more than enough time and money to try to change and improve. Their actions have not worked. Our schools continue to graduate students from high school who cannot fulfill even some of the basic jobs that their parents could with the same education, sometimes from the same schools.
Second, any school can fail children. How much of a failure can it be? When we look at charter schools that are worse than their public school counterparts, how much worse are they? How much damage is done? How much of that damage is irreparable? Let's compare this to alternative medicines or even alternative diagnoses by different doctors. There are times where the treatment is not clear for a particular diagnosis. In those cases, the patient gets to choose a solution. In fact, there are cases that a doctor says that nothing is wrong, and the doctor is wrong. The patient may die of this misdiagnosis. It's highly unlikely that any student will die from going to a bad charter school. It's even less likely that a student will learn nothing. The price does not seem that high to me and is obviously not too high for the parents who choose those schools to try something different. In a life threatening situation, you can't blame a patient for choosing and alternative medical treatment, if that's all he or she has left. In a situation in which the public schools are very bad, you can't blame a parent for trying something different, especially if there is hope that it might work. After all, if a child is three or four grades behind in reading because of social promotion in a school district, will the child really be harmed if he or she ends up three and a half or four and a half years behind. This is the situation in some of the cases.
Third, while I haven't seen all of the data, I would guess that some of the schools performing worse than their district schools are in good districts in which the "poor" performance is still well above national averages and is still good. In other words, students are likely in situations that would not be difficult to remedy.
If I examine the worst case of each position, it seems to me that allowing charter schools is far better than the alternative of not having charter schools. The fact that there are many high performing charter schools and that charter schools are disproportionately represented among the best high schools in the U.S. should show that charter schools have something to show traditional public schools around the country.
I'm not looking to save American education. In some areas it's not terrible, but in other areas, it's as if it's already dead. It won't be revived. The only answer is to do something new and different. There is little incentive for schools to get better on their own. Charter schools may not be THE answer, but they have to be allowed to try to find the answers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment