Here is an excellent article from the Center for Education Reform:
SIX COMMON CRITICISMS FROM OPPONENTS…AND PROOF THAT THEY ARE UNFOUNDED
1) Creates Balkanization in Education
(The “Charter Schools Segregate” Argument)
More than 22 studies demonstrate that charters are over serving those
traditionally under served by failing schools, such as low socio-economic
populations and students at risk of dropping out. Three studies suggest
that the charters examined serve essentially the same population as the
surrounding area.
Charter schools either serve the same demographic characteristics as in
traditional public schools, or focus on students in danger of failing.
Variations, which may exist, depend upon the neighborhood where the
schools are located, but in all cases mitigate in favor of serving larger
numbers of minority and ethnic populations.
The reason for larger service to minority children is not owing to
“Balkanization,” but to the fact that where traditional schools fail to
serve their students, the parents want out, and nowhere is this more
prevalent than in failing urban public schools serving mostly
African-American and Hispanic students.
2) Competition Has No Impact (The Anti-Ripple Argument)
The combined research of five districts by the State University of
New York, by University of California scholars and by both state
and national institutions finds extensive evidence of changes in
programs, approaches, behavior and an increased responsiveness
to consumers as a result of charters. In some places the impact is
muted by policies advocated by opponents of charter schools that
protect districts and schools from harm when children choose to leave.
Competition has had the greatest impact where there are strong charter
laws; the weakest impact where there are weak charter laws. Prior to
the passage of strong charter school laws and the establishment of the
resulting charter schools, real reforms moved slowly - or not at all.
3) Innovation Is Lacking (The Prove It's So Different Argument)
Numerous studies cited show that innovative practices and programs
are being implemented in charter schools. The flexibility these schools
enjoy has not prompted them to make risky experiments, but rather
allows them to use programs that are often not permitted or not extended
to teachers because of oversight from distant bureaucracies.
Charter schools also prompt traditional school districts to substantively
reform classroom instruction. This impact includes such improvements
as adopting instruction programs used by charter schools, developing
and building thematic schools to meet the community demand
demonstrated by charter schools and partnering with community colleges
for better instruction and program expansion.
The “No Innovation” argument relies on a vague definition that ignores
the local variations that exist in public education. Because each charter
school responds essentially to local conditions, what may be innovative
in one area (i.e., block scheduling or year-round schooling) may be common
in another. A charter school offers the opportunity to employ new practices
that may otherwise be blocked by bureaucratic or political considerations
of the traditional public school district.
4) More Accountability is Needed (The Process Versus Progress Argument)
Critics argue that charter schools lack the oversight of publicly accountable
boards and institutions. As proof they point to the fact that charter schools
close when they do not serve their mission and to personnel policies that do
not mandate district oversight. In reality, that is the kind of “accountability”
that has long been absent from public schools.
In teacher surveys, freedom from procedural rules and related constraints
is often cited as what charter teacher’s value most. Charter school
accountability is based on goals set and the extent to which parents who
choose those schools believe the school is meeting their expectations.
Traditional public schools that consistently fail to meet goals (in those
rare instances when they are set) are propped up and continue to do a
disservice to the children attending them. Charter schools that
consistently fail to meet goals (which are always set) are closed;
this is an important, powerful measure of accountability.
5) No Evidence That They Work (The Double Standard Argument)
In his report for the National School Boards Association, Thomas
Good argues that there is no achievement evidence and therefore,
the claim that charters will be better does not hold up. Later, he
says that the research is not credible for purposes of comparing
student achievement. In reality, many charter schools are not
comparable to similar public schools because of the time in which
children have spent there and the benchmarks are not always the
same among all schools.
However, research is building in states that administer statewide
objective tests based on proficiency in key standards. Fifteen
studies show positive achievement and gains among charter
schools which, while preliminary and not comprehensive, in fact
do show that there is evidence that many work. Nearly every
study demonstrates that - although the charter schools reviewed
focused on “at-risk” students who entered the school performing
significantly below grade level – students’ progress was at or above
the progress recorded by students in surrounding traditional
public schools, demographically comparable schools, or the
state average.
6) The Common Good Is Undermined, Sort Of (Choice Is Bad For
Democracy Argument)
Critics say that the common good of public education is undermined
when people choose to associate with people whose values they share.
The values most identified by parents as reasons for their choosing
charters is the value of a good education. Charters are a response to
failing schools and deficiencies in traditional public schools.
Therefore charter schools should be judged on how well they satisfy
the need and desire for alternatives and not on some larger notion
of public good that doesn’t necessarily manifest itself in good schools.
Charter schools are based largely upon accountability. They must be
approved by a state agency designed to review the quality and
effectiveness of these schools. If the applications cannot clear the
bar, or if the schools do not meet their contractual obligations,
the public good is not served and the school will not be approved
or will be shut down.
Can traditional public schools make the same claim?
The Center for Education Reform is a national, independent, non-profit
advocacy organization providing support and guidance to individuals,
community and civic groups, policymakers and others who are working
to bring fundamental reforms to their schools. For further information,
please call (202) 822-9000.
SIX COMMON CRITICISMS FROM OPPONENTS…AND PROOF THAT THEY ARE UNFOUNDED
1) Creates Balkanization in Education
(The “Charter Schools Segregate” Argument)
More than 22 studies demonstrate that charters are over serving those
traditionally under served by failing schools, such as low socio-economic
populations and students at risk of dropping out. Three studies suggest
that the charters examined serve essentially the same population as the
surrounding area.
Charter schools either serve the same demographic characteristics as in
traditional public schools, or focus on students in danger of failing.
Variations, which may exist, depend upon the neighborhood where the
schools are located, but in all cases mitigate in favor of serving larger
numbers of minority and ethnic populations.
The reason for larger service to minority children is not owing to
“Balkanization,” but to the fact that where traditional schools fail to
serve their students, the parents want out, and nowhere is this more
prevalent than in failing urban public schools serving mostly
African-American and Hispanic students.
2) Competition Has No Impact (The Anti-Ripple Argument)
The combined research of five districts by the State University of
New York, by University of California scholars and by both state
and national institutions finds extensive evidence of changes in
programs, approaches, behavior and an increased responsiveness
to consumers as a result of charters. In some places the impact is
muted by policies advocated by opponents of charter schools that
protect districts and schools from harm when children choose to leave.
Competition has had the greatest impact where there are strong charter
laws; the weakest impact where there are weak charter laws. Prior to
the passage of strong charter school laws and the establishment of the
resulting charter schools, real reforms moved slowly - or not at all.
3) Innovation Is Lacking (The Prove It's So Different Argument)
Numerous studies cited show that innovative practices and programs
are being implemented in charter schools. The flexibility these schools
enjoy has not prompted them to make risky experiments, but rather
allows them to use programs that are often not permitted or not extended
to teachers because of oversight from distant bureaucracies.
Charter schools also prompt traditional school districts to substantively
reform classroom instruction. This impact includes such improvements
as adopting instruction programs used by charter schools, developing
and building thematic schools to meet the community demand
demonstrated by charter schools and partnering with community colleges
for better instruction and program expansion.
The “No Innovation” argument relies on a vague definition that ignores
the local variations that exist in public education. Because each charter
school responds essentially to local conditions, what may be innovative
in one area (i.e., block scheduling or year-round schooling) may be common
in another. A charter school offers the opportunity to employ new practices
that may otherwise be blocked by bureaucratic or political considerations
of the traditional public school district.
4) More Accountability is Needed (The Process Versus Progress Argument)
Critics argue that charter schools lack the oversight of publicly accountable
boards and institutions. As proof they point to the fact that charter schools
close when they do not serve their mission and to personnel policies that do
not mandate district oversight. In reality, that is the kind of “accountability”
that has long been absent from public schools.
In teacher surveys, freedom from procedural rules and related constraints
is often cited as what charter teacher’s value most. Charter school
accountability is based on goals set and the extent to which parents who
choose those schools believe the school is meeting their expectations.
Traditional public schools that consistently fail to meet goals (in those
rare instances when they are set) are propped up and continue to do a
disservice to the children attending them. Charter schools that
consistently fail to meet goals (which are always set) are closed;
this is an important, powerful measure of accountability.
5) No Evidence That They Work (The Double Standard Argument)
In his report for the National School Boards Association, Thomas
Good argues that there is no achievement evidence and therefore,
the claim that charters will be better does not hold up. Later, he
says that the research is not credible for purposes of comparing
student achievement. In reality, many charter schools are not
comparable to similar public schools because of the time in which
children have spent there and the benchmarks are not always the
same among all schools.
However, research is building in states that administer statewide
objective tests based on proficiency in key standards. Fifteen
studies show positive achievement and gains among charter
schools which, while preliminary and not comprehensive, in fact
do show that there is evidence that many work. Nearly every
study demonstrates that - although the charter schools reviewed
focused on “at-risk” students who entered the school performing
significantly below grade level – students’ progress was at or above
the progress recorded by students in surrounding traditional
public schools, demographically comparable schools, or the
state average.
6) The Common Good Is Undermined, Sort Of (Choice Is Bad For
Democracy Argument)
Critics say that the common good of public education is undermined
when people choose to associate with people whose values they share.
The values most identified by parents as reasons for their choosing
charters is the value of a good education. Charters are a response to
failing schools and deficiencies in traditional public schools.
Therefore charter schools should be judged on how well they satisfy
the need and desire for alternatives and not on some larger notion
of public good that doesn’t necessarily manifest itself in good schools.
Charter schools are based largely upon accountability. They must be
approved by a state agency designed to review the quality and
effectiveness of these schools. If the applications cannot clear the
bar, or if the schools do not meet their contractual obligations,
the public good is not served and the school will not be approved
or will be shut down.
Can traditional public schools make the same claim?
The Center for Education Reform is a national, independent, non-profit
advocacy organization providing support and guidance to individuals,
community and civic groups, policymakers and others who are working
to bring fundamental reforms to their schools. For further information,
please call (202) 822-9000.
No comments:
Post a Comment