The recent debate of whether charter schools belong in suburban areas has sparkled the age-old question, “Why fix something that isn’t broken?” This is what the group “Millburn Parents Against Charter Schools” want to know.
Add two more suburban charter schools to the relatively small, but growing list of charter schools located outside of urban areas if New Jersey State Education Department grants the founding parents their charter. Mr. Stewart, who is spearheading the petition, says “In suburban areas like Millburn, there’s no evidence whatsoever that the local school district is not doing its job. So what’s the rationale for a charter school?” This comment is backed by the commonalities that charter schools have with one another dating back twenty years when the first charter school was founded in Minnesota. Charter schools are publicly funded but have autonomy when determining the mission and areas of study the school wants to focus on. Furthermore, charter schools have been promoted as a way to give poor children an alternative to underperforming urban schools.
Another argument that petitioners of the like side with is that these unnecessary suburban charter schools take away funding from an already tight budget intended for traditional public schools.
It is tired to argue that funding does not necessarily equal achievement nor does it play as big of a role as having effective teachers who spark passions (more likely to be done in schools with higher autonomy) in students or smaller class sizes which, consequentially is what Millburn public schools would more than likely have if their attrition rates increase slightly due to a neighboring charter school.
Entities apposed to charter schools in suburban areas need to understand that education is not static. The once association that poor children equals the need for charter schools or underperforming urban schools equals the need for charter schools is not up to date. If charter schools whether in urban or suburban areas are achieving to the standards that the state was deemed “adequate”, then what’s the fuss? Even if something is not broken does not mean it can't get better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/education/17charters.html
1 comment:
Marcos,
I found your reading of this article quite interesting. I was especially interested in one comment you made regarding parental expectations of education and education reform, "entities apposed to charter schools in suburban areas need to understand that education is not static."
You could not be more on the dot about what feels to be the constantly evolving nature of education reform. The quick fixes in city settings abound, and have for some time, but not in the suburbs, or at least not to the same dramatic extent. And, maybe for the first time in quite a while, students in suburban areas are beginning to feel some of this upheaval to a more significant extent than they have in quite some time. However, is this necessarily good? Charters remain a relatively untested approach to education, and as you explain yourself, they function very differently in the suburbs than in the city. Will these charters necessarily be a boon to already successful education systems? Could they in fact break something that has taken many generations to become stable and relatively high performing?
Post a Comment