I love John Oliver, I strongly support the responsibility that society has to provide opportunities for a quality education to all children, and I don't support the conventional education models of most charter schools, but there is simply no evidence that charter schools are more susceptible to corruption than public schools.
Charter schools, like public schools, are only as good or bad as the people running them. There are public schools all over the country (especially in Detroit, lately) where administrators have stolen funds. There are greedy, dishonest people who work in the public sector, just as there are greedy, dishonest people who work in the private sector.
The fact that bad charter schools occasionally close suddenly, leaving kids temporarily without a school, is every bit as much the fault of the public school district overseeing them and the contracts they signed.
Issues of poor school funding and management (the U.S. spends more per pupil than all but two or three countries, and some of the worst schools in the U.S. spend the most per pupil) aren't the fault of charter schools, which generally spend less per pupil. I've no doubt that not hiring union teachers is responsible for some of that, but while I support the rights of teachers to organize, I have not seen quality of education increase as the power of teacher unions has increased. I've not seen the quality of education increase as per pupil spending has increased by an inflation adjusted factor of 3 in the last 40 years.
Also, I'm confused by your concern that privatized school districts have left "parents and the community with very little say in the education of their children." If that's the case, how is it different when the schools were run by the school district? The reason so many people want to win the lottery to be in a local charter is precisely because they've never had any say in the education of the their children.
Rich people have always had choices as to where their kids go to school. I think poor people deserve educational choices as well. I think a system that denies poor people educational choices is neither compassionate nor liberal. And, as a good liberal, I'm pro-choice in all things. :)
Most importantly, the idea that the people who run and work for charters are against public schools in general is, in my opinion, every bit as based in fact as the claim on the right that public schools want to decrease the rights and influence of parents over their children. It's an ideological argument, not a practical one. Just as is the assertion that private organizations are somehow intrinsically less humane than public ones.
Are there some charter proponents who want to make all education private? Sure. Are there some public school supporters who want to make private or home-based education illegal? Of course. But most people aren't extremists. Most people just want all families to have access to the kind of education that they find satisfying (because there is no one kind of education that will satisfy most families).
Okay, sorry for the rant. I'm a former teacher (special-ed) who is very interested in education and I very much enjoy your essays and your approach to being with very young children (they're my favorite kind).
Hi Tom,
ReplyDeleteI love John Oliver, I strongly support the responsibility that society has to provide opportunities for a quality education to all children, and I don't support the conventional education models of most charter schools, but there is simply no evidence that charter schools are more susceptible to corruption than public schools.
Charter schools, like public schools, are only as good or bad as the people running them. There are public schools all over the country (especially in Detroit, lately) where administrators have stolen funds. There are greedy, dishonest people who work in the public sector, just as there are greedy, dishonest people who work in the private sector.
The fact that bad charter schools occasionally close suddenly, leaving kids temporarily without a school, is every bit as much the fault of the public school district overseeing them and the contracts they signed.
Issues of poor school funding and management (the U.S. spends more per pupil than all but two or three countries, and some of the worst schools in the U.S. spend the most per pupil) aren't the fault of charter schools, which generally spend less per pupil. I've no doubt that not hiring union teachers is responsible for some of that, but while I support the rights of teachers to organize, I have not seen quality of education increase as the power of teacher unions has increased. I've not seen the quality of education increase as per pupil spending has increased by an inflation adjusted factor of 3 in the last 40 years.
Also, I'm confused by your concern that privatized school districts have left "parents and the community with very little say in the education of their children." If that's the case, how is it different when the schools were run by the school district? The reason so many people want to win the lottery to be in a local charter is precisely because they've never had any say in the education of the their children.
Rich people have always had choices as to where their kids go to school. I think poor people deserve educational choices as well. I think a system that denies poor people educational choices is neither compassionate nor liberal. And, as a good liberal, I'm pro-choice in all things. :)
Most importantly, the idea that the people who run and work for charters are against public schools in general is, in my opinion, every bit as based in fact as the claim on the right that public schools want to decrease the rights and influence of parents over their children. It's an ideological argument, not a practical one. Just as is the assertion that private organizations are somehow intrinsically less humane than public ones.
Are there some charter proponents who want to make all education private? Sure. Are there some public school supporters who want to make private or home-based education illegal? Of course. But most people aren't extremists. Most people just want all families to have access to the kind of education that they find satisfying (because there is no one kind of education that will satisfy most families).
Okay, sorry for the rant. I'm a former teacher (special-ed) who is very interested in education and I very much enjoy your essays and your approach to being with very young children (they're my favorite kind).
Best regards,
Les