Feb
1
Class#2 Blog Post – Charter Schools
February 1, 2015 | Leave a Comment
Class 2: Charter School – Really That Bad ?
Taking a glance at the readings, one can’t help but notice a sense of dramatic differences in the authors’ assessments of charter schools. One side takes a harsh stand against the charter school system, listing the negative aspects such as the sense of dividedness due to the difference in equipments between charter and public schools, the exile of special-needs students, and the lack of transparency in charter school spending. On the other hand, the authors seem to overlook certain positives of charter school such as elevated grades and better studying environments brought by the involvement of private capital. Going along with the readings, I can’t help but questions the negatives aspects of charter schools that some authors build their arguments on, and come to appreciate some positive aspects of charter schools. These negatives seems more like natural occurrences by letting private capital into the industry and results of faulty regulations in the system than inherent problems within the charter school system itself, while the positive effects are more solid in comparison.
Both Trymaine Lee of msnbc and Pedro Noguera of The Nation magazine elevates the negative aspects of charter schools. One of the harshest criticisms goes to the differences in equipments of charter school, but that come to be expected as there are private capitals in play. With private organizations running the school and private donations pouring into charter schools, it should only be normal that they become more competitive and bring in better conditions to support their operation. In the cases of charter school encroaching spaces from public schools, exiling special-needs students, and the lack of transparency on spending, they are more problems with how the system is run than problems of the system itself. For one, it is the administration that decides to combine charter school into public schools, so it’s not really the charter school’s fault, but a problem of lack of space provided by the government. While in the case of taking in less special-needs students and lack of transparency on spending, it is also the result of a lack of regulation on the problem. Especially in the case of special-needs students, as there needs to be a better protocol in place to prevent them from being displaced after winning the lottery into the charter schools or having the lottery controlled against them. Not to mention that some schools likes People’s Prep in Newark didn’t have a lottery system, but serve on a first come basis that made them take in a substantial amount of special-needs students. While I agree that problems exist with charter school, they are not inherent within the system and could be fixed with the right regulations in place. This is why I wish the authors could look at the good side of charter schools more, as they over emphasize on fixable problems that they tend to overlook the good brought by charter schools.
While scarcely mentioned in Lee and Noguera’s articles, charter schools do provide some benefits that tops the performance of ordinary public schools. The most notable of these benefits being the elevated grades in general student populations. While not occurring in all charter schools, the grades presented by Harlem Success Academy against regular public schools still makes a good point about the ability of charter schools. While the authors suggests that such achievements are the results of charter school’s act of accepting exceptional students and rejecting the special-need ones, there is no proof of it being the only factor. As a matter of fact, the elevated grades could be a result of charter schools’ new teaching methods, one reason that charter schools were ever implemented, as one can see through Harlem Success Academy’s extended schedule compare to regular public schools. To me, if the authors wish to persuade others that the benefits of charter schools are really as little as the authors describes them to be, more evidence would be needed to better clarify the issue of the charter schools’ lack of effects are needed. As of now, I still see the performances of charter school students as evidence of at least a certain degree of success in their methods.
From another perspective Bev McCarron of New Jersey Monthly and Lauren Mignogno, a literature teacher of People’s Prep charter schools, also come to disprove the notion that charter schools only takes in easy students by presenting how People’s Prep of Newark takes on the challenge of educating the challenged student. People’s Prep’s success at getting these challenged students up to speed with high school education is another evidence of the quality of education for charter schools. This success might not prove to be the case for all charter schools, but it does provide a glance at the potential accomplishments of these institutions. That is why I would like to believe that despite the problems that many charter schools are currently going through, they can be more beneficial to this society than harmful, as these authors who praise the success of People’s Prep believe.
The real problem with the charter school system lie after its playing field with normal public school are evened out by implementing better regulations. After the issue of inequality in conditions are removed, the true effects of the differences in the teaching method of charter schools may be revealed. If the effects are positive, it is natural that these methods be adopted to regular public schools, fulfilling charter schools’ original purpose of exploring new ways of education. The question now is whether the current teaching methods of charter schools can be applied to regular public schools. Does the method of charter schools require additional resources compare to methods of regular public schools? If yes, is there enough resources for the regular public schools to adapt the ways of charter schools? After all, if the regular public schools can’t adapt these methods, then a major purpose of charter school would go unfulfilled. In that case, while charter schools still provide high quality education to a small group of students, it fails to serve the greater good of the general student population of the society.
As of now, charter schools have not proven itself to be a liability of this society, and in fact may indeed bring substantial goods to the field of education. However, we will not know until new regulations can be put in place to negate the negative aspects of charter schools and have it on a fair level of comparison with regular public school. I am hopeful though, that charter schools can prove themselves to be able to provide quality education to the few while also supporting the growth of regular public schools through development of new ways of education.
