Public education in America is in a fallen, corrupt state and charter schools are the imminent savior of our American way of life; that is if we believe the hype from the raft of educational documentaries released in 2010 like “Waiting for Superman”; “The Lottery”; “Teached”; and “The Cartel”. According to these much ballyhooed films the American system of public education is going down the toilet, and charter schools are a big part of the prescription.
When we moved to Moscow in 2006, we enrolled our daughter in kindergarten at Moscow Charter School (MCS) on the recommendation of some community members. I still recall our first visit to the MCS campus in March 2006; although the academic achievement of MCS students was above average, I was primarily impressed by the community and competency displayed by the teachers and students. In 2007 my wife became president of the Parent Advisory Team at MCS, and in 2008 I joined the MCS Board of Directors. My tenure on the MCS Board taught me many valuable, bittersweet lessons.
Contrary to popular belief, charter schools are public schools and are funded by public dollars. The simplest way to describe how charters differ from “regular” public schools is that they trade funding for flexibility. Charter schools are able to stretch a buck further than most “regular” public schools. This is both a good and a bad thing. Charter schools receive the basic per pupil allotment from the state of Idaho but are unable to benefit from monies raised through local levies. School districts in Idaho were able to absorb drastic education cuts last year through local levy money, but not charter schools. Thus charter schools are hit much harder in difficult financial times than regular public schools.
In spite of these funding discrepancies, most charter schools in Idaho still offer smaller class sizes and more diverse programming than regular public schools. For example, the teacher to pupil ratio at MCS is about 20 to 1, significantly lower than most public elementary schools in Idaho. MCS, through donations and community support also continues to offer foreign language, arts, P.E., drama, music, and technology programming, whereas many public elementary schools in Idaho have seen the slow elimination of many of these programs. Tom Luna’s proposed agenda for reform will surely see the elimination of many more of these programs in the future along with an exponential increase in class size in most regular public schools in Idaho.
Despite their relative efficiency and diverse programs charter schools are, unfortunately, no better at increasing student achievement than regular public schools. Last year, a major longitudinal study by the U.S. Department of Education showed that over the past 8 years, the testing and achievement results at charter schools are on par with other public schools; charter schools are no better and no worse. Certainly there are shining examples of outstanding charter schools that challenge this finding, but there are also shining examples of “regular” public schools that challenge the notion that all schools in America are failing our children.
Where charter schools really shine is in the creation of a committed community of learners. Research over the past 10 years, while critical of the scholastic value of charter schools, has shown that students, teachers, and parents are more connected and involved in the day-to-day activities of the school. Regular public schools have a tendency to lose kids and families because of their large size and bureaucratic mazes; charter schools are small enough that parents can get involved with every aspect of their child’s education. Successful charter schools have a committed core of parents and teachers who are invested in the success of that school, and although that’s not an element of excellence that Tom Luna or the federal government is interested in measuring, it is the primary reason why, for me and my family, we choose the charter school.
No comments:
Post a Comment