(Week 4 Pt. 1 blog)
The article titled, “The Myth of
Charter Schools,” by Diane Ravitch brought up some excellent points and used
some great statistics that squashed the negative stigma that public schools,
and public school teachers, sometimes get. Growing up with two parents in public education, I could see
early on that the education profession was time consuming, tiring, and required
much patience. Knowing all this,
why would I get into such a profession?
Why not get involved with something that pays more, and allows me to
keep my work and my home life as two separate entities? For me, the answer to that was
simple. As an educator, I have a
direct impact on the future of society.
Although sometimes on a small scale, teachers do have the opportunity to
shape the future. This is an idea
that individuals outside of education have a hard time understanding. “Outsiders” view teachers as
individuals seeking a 3 month vacation, who’s job requires them to open a text
book and baby sit for 45 minute increments until a new wave of students comes
in. Those of us in the education
profession know that this is entirely false and the exact opposite of popular
opinion. In relation to this
article, the same idea carried over when looking at the difference between charter
schools and public schools. The
argument behind, “Waiting for ‘Superman’’ attacked public education,
specifically public education teachers, pinning all the “problems” that occur
in public education on the teachers.
According to the article, the film blamed low test scores on “bad
teachers,” and suggested that getting rid of such educators would improve
certain aspects of school, such as test scores. Ms. Ravitch uses a number of statistics and asks a number of
questions that shine light on the faulty argument presented by this film.
One
example that comes to mind is the vast diversity teachers face in the public
school setting, compared to the limited diversity seen in a charter school
classroom. To my understanding,
charter schools do not face some of the challenges public schools face in terms
of learning disabilities and low socio-economic status. Apparently, this was a huge part that
was left out of the film. How the filmmaker
does not acknowledge this gap and still have a legitimate argument? I don’t believe it is possible. With all of the research that is
linked, and has been proven, with lower income families and their child’s
performance in school, it is an incomparable aspect because charter schools do
not face this same challenge in terms of learning. With that being said, it would make sense for charter
schools to score higher than public schools on tests. You could make the same argument for learning disabilities,
which are readily present in the public school setting and almost non-existent
in the private/charter school setting.
It is like comparing apples and oranges.
The
one connection that I can make with this argument is in sports. One of the biggest reasons why public
schools do not play private schools is because students often go to a private
school because they accelerate in a particular sport. The private schools have an unfair advantage on the playing
field because their players go to the school because they accelerate in a
particular sport. This is
something that was figured out and it is one of the reasons why public schools
and private schools are not in the same league. This idea carries over to academics as well. Students might attend a public/charter
school because they excel academically.
Public schools have to accept all students, regardless of any challenges
they may face. With the high
number of applicants and low number of acceptance rates that are mentioned in
the article, it shows that charter schools can have their pick, so why wouldn’t
they pick the cream of the crop? And yet again, the argument and comparison is still made
between charter schools and public schools. Seems like a weak argument to me.
The
argument behind the idea that charter schools are more successful than public
schools uses information and statistics that favor that argument instead of
looking at the entire picture.
Anyone can twist the facts to make an argument look legitimate. Ms. Ravitch does a nice job at
analyzing the arguments made by Guggenheim
and combating them with the truth, not just half the story. If I have children someday and am in a
situation where I am deciding to place them into public or private schools, I
would say that public schools would be the route that I take. I believe this because the public
schools provide students with a more real life situation. In life, you need to be able to work
with, tolerate, and live with everyone, not just a limited group of
individuals. I believe public
education provides the exposure that is necessary to work with everyone,
regardless of his or her background.