People who make absolutely no sense.
You know who makes absolutely no sense?
People who are all about school reform and drafting policies to further the education of the youth.
I use "the youth" loosely because it certainly can't be referring to ALL of the youth in our society . . .
I may not fully understand the idea of charter schools, but what I do understand is that they are publicly funded schools open to all that were initially established to provide an exceptional education for the families who are less privileged. Granted charter schools cannot be regarded as monolithic, it is noted that one of the four fundamental values of public education is equity (Keeping the Promise? The Debate Over Public Charter Schools, Hammond & Montgomery). It is later noted that "equity involves examining the school's admission policies and the access granted to students once they enter the school . . . equity may not mean 'equal,' but rather that each child should have access to the educational resources he or she needs to be successful" (98). The poor excuse of a 'definition' for equity speaks for itself. Equity may not mean 'equal, but basically each child should have access to an education. Aka, "we know what equity SHOULD be and what everyone will expect it to be, but we have to throw in that subtle clause in case we f#%@ up and change our minds."
..... which leads me to my next point. If charter schools were initially created to provide opportunities for under privileged families, how does one explain the zoning of these charter schools in middle-upper class neighborhoods? A charter school is not serving EACH child if it can't even claim an integrated student population. How is that child who is already under privileged going to attend the charter school (that is supposedly available to them) if their family can't even afford to live in that neighborhood? And commuting?? You might as well ask them to donate money to the school.
Oh, and don't forget the application process -- ranging from academic prerequisites, assessment exams, and applications printed solely in English to mandated volunteer hours from parents and in extreme cases, mandated investments in the school from the parents (Class Struggle -- How charter schools get students they want, Simon).
I realize that equality is a pretty consistent theme/argument in a majority of my posts regarding education, but it's difficult for me to fathom how a system that proposes "choices" for students can so easily conceal these supposed "choices" by creating all of these obstacles guaranteed to deter a particular population from enrolling. I understand charter schools are essentially a marketable entity, very much like private schools. Each school (a product) has to compete for funding in addition to selling their school to students (customers) to increase high performance in return for funding. And while I see how this approach could not only be economically beneficial, but a contribution to public education reform, I am not buying the spiel of "equity" and "access" and "public access" when the majority of these charter schools are "choosing" students who are well-supported at home or high achieving. Did these fundamental values suddenly take on new definitions of which I am not aware? The choice ultimately becomes that of the school, not the student. And what does that mean for the under privileged children? It really irks me when people complain about this population being uneducated when the option of receiving a decent education or additional resources is hardly ever made available to them. Without the education that their more privileged counterparts are receiving, how do they ever move up? Who is actually benefiting the most from this education? The children for which the education is intended? Or the stakeholders and policy constituents? I just want to point out that if we can conceive of education as an economic investment with a monetary gain, then we should be able to see education as an investment in our society's youth with a much greater gain.
No comments:
Post a Comment