You and I are old enough to remember heated debates about what democracy in education means. Some argued that it had to do with the governance of education, with the ability of the public to participate in decisions affecting their children. Some maintained that it had to do with the provision of a high-quality education in every school, so that the education available to those with the least resources was as good as the education available to those with the most resources. There were many other definitions, but this much is clear: The argument did not center on whether to have good public schools, but how to make them better for all.
Now we are at a new juncture. The Obama administration has resolved that "school reform" requires privatization of as many public schools as possible. Officials in the administration point to examples of truly excellent privately managed charter schools and imply that all privately managed schools will be equally excellent, just by being privately managed.
Now, anyone who pays attention to the newspapers knows that this presumption is wrong. There are excellent charter schools, and there are fly-by-night operations, and there are greedy speculators who see a chance to make money while drilling kids on the basics, and there are many in-betweens who are yet to prove themselves.
The charter concept is a promising one, but only if the charters commit to helping the kids who can't make it in regular public schools. Then they would serve an important public service. Most, however, seem to think that they are supposed to compete with public schools and drive them out of business so that privately run schools can take over a basic public function and take over public space, leaving themselves free to remove the most difficult students.
EdWeek
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
