http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/nyregion/charter-school-sends-message-thrive-or-transfer.html?_r=1&ref=education
I know that cream rises to the top. I also know that it is important to make sure that the students who are the most capable are challenged. It is especially important in today's global economy to produce crops of students that are as strong as possible. However, what does it say when we are willing to sacrifice the education and well-being of the struggling to ensure the development of that "top level" student? This is most certainly an effective way to make certain a school performs at the highest level of academic rigor (there will not be any students who slow the class down), but is it the right thing to do?
This article tells the story of a little boy who was (arguably) forced out of a charter school because he was doing just that, slowing the class down. He later proved to be a successful student elsewhere. The disturbing part is he was only in first grade when the high performing charter decided to "redirect" this student. Should charter schools be able to select their students in this way? Is it the burden of the truly public school to take all those unwanted students? What does this do to a child's psychology? Will every student be as successful after being kicked out of a charter? I cannot know the answer to these questions and I know they are a little bit dramatic, but the point is one worthy of discussion. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
After reading the original article and others like it, it seems clear that there is strong evidence of charter schools cherry picking entrants and forcing some students out. Although Moskowitz and others at the Harlem Success Academies dispute the numbers, even their revised statistics show that their charters serve a lower proportion of ELL and Special Education students.
In my view, charters either shouldn't be allowed to do this or they shouldn't be considered "truly" public schools. If charter schools are public, they need to proportionately share the burden of special needs students. If charter schools are not truly public and are de facto allowed to cherry pick, their successes will probably be less likely to transfer over to traditional pubic schools (a supposed goal of the charter school movement). The charter success stories that political and policy actors cite to promote their reform agendas will in turn become less convincing, because those charters were able to remove the most problematic students.
In terms of the little boy's outcomes, it seems that in this case leaving the charter worked out well for him and so his psychological state probably will not be severely damaged. However, it seems highly likely that not every student would have found such a good fit after leaving or being kicked out of a charter.
Finally, one NYT reader noted that if this boy had been treated in the same way in a traditional public school, most comments would be "excoriating the teacher and blaming the unions." I agree with this reader's assessment, and think it is time that we as a society take a more critical look at the implications of charters' practices.
Post a Comment