On March 29, some of the biggest names in educational reform descended on the District for a ritzy dinner and discussion on the future of school choice and public charter schools in the city. The FOCUS (Friends of Choice in Urban Schools) Gala included speeches from former New York City Public Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, and D.C. Council Chairman Kwame Brown. Kaya Henderson, current Chancellor of D.C. Public Schools, was also in attendance, although she did not speak.
While the event was lauded by school choice advocates in the media, Mayor Gray and Chairman Brown seem to have disappointed. Both neglected to mention a topic on everyone’s lips—equal funding for charter schools. Hopefully, the two men did not omit the topic out of ignorance, but rather because they didn’t want to offend the pro-school privatization crowd. D.C. charters do not deserve or need equal funding to traditional public schools in the city, and despite the well-funded advertising and lobbying efforts of the school choice community, the bulk of our tax dollars should go to schools able to serve all students.
One of the biggest arguments in favor of D.C. charters is that they are more successful at increasing test scores and graduating at-risk students. On the surface, this seems true—the 2011 graduation rate for D.C. charter schools overall stands around 80 percent, while newly revised numbers for traditional public schools put their rate at under 60 percent overall. School choice advocates would have us believe that this is all because of their innovative techniques and flexible hiring and firing of teachers, but there are many other factors also in play.
Although they bill themselves as open to everyone, charters are actually self-selecting institutions. A student and his or her family have to opt in to a charter school, filling out lengthy applications, surviving a random selection system for admittance, and often traveling considerable distances to get to school. This means that students who end up in charters are more concerned about their education and/or have parents who push them to an option outside of their neighborhood school.
Meanwhile, the public schools get all types the unmotivated, those with broken family lives, and the children of apathetic parents. It only makes sense that these schools would not graduate as many people, and this is completely acceptable. Schools should look not only to educate those who come motivated and ready to learn, but to inspire those made bitter or despondent by circumstance to reach for something better. Traditional public schools fill this role, and should be funded more to deal with the unique challenges they face.
Additionally, charter schools often do not offer the same services that public schools must. For instance, special education and English as a second language classes are often not offered at charters, so these students, who require more educational resources, are sent to their neighborhood schools. Charters should not be funded as though they provide these services.
Furthermore, charter schools often receive ample funding from private organizations. In fact, many of the biggest charter successes, like the Harlem Children’s Zone and the nationwide KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) schools, stand on the shoulders of countless wealthy donors. This means that they often have the means to hire more teachers, offer higher wages, increase technology in the classrooms, provide more after school programs, and much more.
It’s well documented that charters nationwide don’t provide better education than their traditional public counterparts only 17 percent get better results to a level that is statistically significant and those that do are often the ones with the choicest students and most funding. Certainly, they do not need more government dollars.
This private funding highlights an even bigger issue with school privatization—lack of oversight. Although all charters receive public money, they are privately owned and operated. That means there is no local school board or, in D.C.’s case, a school chancellor and mayor to hold accountable for ineffective institutions. Their corporate benefactors or university sponsors cannot be voted out of office when things head south. This means that we are effectively giving money to officials who are not ultimately accountable to the public. They certainly do not deserve more of it.
Most importantly, charter schools, no matter how good they are, cannot serve every student. While we do not need to make public schools better or more flexible like some charters, they are the only institutions that hold the potential to serve every student. There is nothing wrong with school choice in principle, but we must first make certain the one universal option is a good one. Charter schools do not deserve more funding, but our traditional public schools certainly need every dime they can get. That’s the only way to truly make sure no child is left behind.
Waiting for the real Superman? Find him in Gavin at gbade@georgetownvoice.com
