Educational historian and former assistant secretary of education, Diane Ravitch, was once a proponent of charter schools and wrote books and articles making their case. However, in her book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, she
explained why she has changed her mind. “Given the weight of the
studies, evaluations and federal test data, I concluded that
deregulations and privately managed charter schools were not the answer
to the deep-seated problems of America education…Charter schools,
privately run but publicly funded, cherry-pick a neighborhood’s best
students and kick out under-performers, forcing surrounding public
schools to teach a depleted talent pool.”
Charter schools, for the most part, are
publicly funded schools that are annulled from the rules, regulations,
and statutes that apply to traditional public schools. They operate
under a written contract, or charter. These contracts specify how the
school will be held accountable for improved achievement. Their design
suggests that if they improve students’ achievement, their contracts
will be renewed. Those that do not will be closed. Sounds great,
however, as it stands, only a tiny percentage of charters have been shut
down, and those overwhelmingly had their charter terminated based on
misspent money, not student performance. According to a study for the
U.S. Dept of Education, “Charter schools rarely face sanctions.”
The movement toward charter schools is
expanding despite the absence of accountability. There is no strong or
convincing evidence that charter schools have improved student
achievement or that they are being held more accountable for academic
outcomes than regular public schools. Charter school proponents point to
a 2003 study by the RAND Corporation as evidence of success. It
concluded that charter school students in California “…are keeping pace
with comparable students in conventional schools.” This is not an
endorsement. Indeed, given the promise to raise achievement, this
statistic reflects failure.
In fact, a national study conducted by
Stanford University economist Margaret Raymond found that 37% of charter
schools got worse results than comparable neighborhood public schools,
46% did about the same and only 17% were superior to public schools.
Raymond surmised, “if this study shows anything, it shows we’ve got a 2
to 1 margin of bad charters to good charters.”
California Charter School Association
claims that California charter schools “get results because they are
highly responsive to students needs, do a better job increasing student
achievement and demonstrate commitment to quality standards.” This type
of propaganda is nothing but a marketing tool. As consumers we are
bombarded daily with astonishing declarations about products and
services. We are weary from deciphering the snake oils from the real
McCoys. Marketing schools in this way is turning education into a
commercial transaction, rather than a democratic ideal.
I understand the public’s frustration with
traditional public schools, and as an education and a mother I strongly
seek better results from our educational system. Charter schools,
however, are not the answer. They have been a costly venture on an
unproven alternative while cutting public school resources - resources
we have paid for.
Contact Margaret Lavin at elementarydays@gmail.com.
