Senator:
If something more robust does not pass the state legislator, then I fear that all we will get is only a continuation of the old system, and that would be unacceptable to me. The charter school bills we have seen in previous sessions (SB 2774, 2293) essentially claimed to only focus on the 'underperforming schools,' but the law (it seems to me) was so weak that almost no charter schools were opened.
I know from first hand how institutionally corrupt schools can hide their lack of student achievement so that they can continue to get their state funding (and thus, under the old laws, not have to worry about another school competing with them for state and local funds). I know how bad schools pad the numbers, and all of us have seen the national news lately about what happened in the Atlanta and Chicago school systems with administrators and teachers changing the students's test scores so that they could keep their funding. Do we want to keep giving these people money?
Now senator, you raise a few good points here and I want to try to address them. First, I'm not sure why the local school district needs to be involved in this issue? Sure, it would be nice to get their advice and input when opening a school, but why should it have to be mandatory? Why should parents and independent educators be forced to apply to the local school board who, much of the time, wants to discourage any competition for state and local funds? I think this should be up to parents and tax payers in a local area, and as far as I can tell, if those people don't want to charter a school, then it won't happen and there is nothing to worry about.
I lived in Texas for several years where they have an aggressive charter school system, and the higher performing public schools are still there, the students are still there, and the schools are doing fine. My sister teaches at a charter school in Grand Prairie, and a close friend of mine teaches in a public high school in Hurst. As far as I can tell, and from what I've heard from them, the charter school system is beneficial to everyone, even if they don't use it. On the one hand, it gives parents who want to get their kids away from the gangs and drugs an alternative, and it offers teachers who are burnt out with the ineffectiveness of their local school districts an alternative venue to reach their community. The competition between schools also makes it easier to reform public schools, to hire the best teachers, to remove ineffective (or corrupt) teachers and administrators, makes innovating the curriculum a more approachable topic in faculty meetings, etc. Also, do not assume that only the 'best' students go to charter schools. My sister's school, for example, takes lots of kids (I think 30% of their enrollment) who have been chased out of their public schools for their special ASP program.
But also, the damage to 'human capital' that you were referencing in your response is not some bit of conjecture we are discussing if this bill passes or not: it is a reality that exists already in our schools. I talk to Mississippi teachers all the time who are frustrated that so many of their students, who have the intelligence and potential to move beyond their social circle, begin to drift by their 8th or 9th grade years in those pivotal years as they begin to be influenced less by their classroom teachers and more by their peers. If a student's fellow coevals have no interest in academic improvement and show a disdain for the classroom and learning, then many of those who were once our most promising students begin to go adrift and are headed to a life of poverty or even crime. Since the charter school (unlike a private school) is open to all families regardless of their income, then this gives those promising students a chance (not a 100% chance, but a chance at least) to be educated with more peers who will possibly share their interest in academic betterment.
As far as this concern about charter schools opening up in school districts other than the worst performing ones, I can only ask, why not?
First of all, it takes so many students to charter a school and to pay a teaching faculty, that you can't really set up a school in a district unless there is a sizable number of parents who really want a charter school in their community. Therefore, if most of the parents in a community are happy with their neighborhood school and aren't interested in an alternative, then a charter school is not going to open there because it would not be financially sustainable. Most of the charter schools in Texas are in lower performing areas, not in the higher achieving school districts. However, occasionally you do find magnet schools in higher performing school districts for parents who wanted their children to specialize in some area, or for parents who wanted their children to attend schools that were more friendly to faith and values (unlike almost every public school system now that panics whenever the ACLU cocks an eyebrow).
Anyway, this new law is one step in providing more freedom for our parents, and I hope you can support it. Bottom line, charter schools did not create our 'existing inequities' or inequalities here in Mississippi. Of course, I cannot turn and say that the public schools created them either, but many of our schools clearly do not help the situation that the students were born into, and they might make them worse.
Sorry...I didn't mean to write an essay on your Facebook, but I am passionate about this issue, and I've waited a long time for a more virile bill that would make some changes to our state education system. I agree with you that the bill is not perfect, but I think it is the best thing I have seen in a long time. While I would never ask my state representative to vote against his conscience, it is my hope that you will find enough in this new bill (and I hope some minor, non-adulterating compromises can be reached where possible) to vote 'Yes' when it comes up for a vote. Thank you, and God bless.
No comments:
Post a Comment