Response to: "The Myth of Charter Schools" (Week 4 Pt. 1 blog)

(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.