The Orbis

Issue date: 4/15/09 Section: Opinion

America’s primary and secondary education systems need fundamental reform. Unfortunately, it seems inevitable that this much-needed change will come in the form of charter schools and universal voucher systems, given the political momentum of the privatized education movement. However, many of the arguments put forth by proponents of this movement are simply inaccurate.

One impetus for these trends lies in the frustrations of parents and students living in underserved areas, attending under-funded and under-performing schools. The public education system has failed these people, and they are right to demand improvements.

With no other promising reform proposals in sight, however, the efficacy of the deregulated school model has risen in the public’s eyes to a point of fact. For example, on April 5th the Hustler ran an opinion piece titled “Charter schools work.” In this thesis, the author suggested expanded funding for charter schools without actually proving that charter schools work; their merit is simply assumed.

However, data backing this assumption is lacking. One 2005 study conducted at Columbia University found no significant differences in charter schools’ performance against public schools performance in 49 out of 50 states. For impoverished Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, charter schools actually scored four to five percent lower than public schools. Another study conducted in California showed that charter schools in that state reach their Adequate Yearly Progress less often than public schools. A policy brief released by the Education Policy Research Unit at Arizona State University went so far as to call charter schools “a failed reform.”
Furthermore, much of the research that supporting efficacy of charter schools has been released by policy centers that have much to gain by privatizing America’s public schools. Thus, the notion that privatizing public education will save the system is at best a muddled and unproven belief; yet, it is a belief that seems to be gaining momentum.

Each year, the United States invests over $800 billion on education and, unsurprisingly, the private sector wants a piece of it. But don’t just take my word for it, listen the a major market analysis by the Montgomery Securities group presented to corporations across the country, which claims that “the education industry represents the largest market opportunity” since health-care services were privatized during the 1970’s… “the K-12 market is the Big Enchilada.” But for every American that does not see their education system as a large, albeit tasty Mexican dinner, the intrusion of Big Business needs to set off panic alarms. Companies that run on a profit motive with strong incentives to cut per-pupil-spending cannot be allowed to control our public schools. The results would not only be disastrous for our students, but also for the dedicated teachers running their classrooms.

Running parallel to that popular assumption that charter schools work is the belief that teacher unions stand in the way of progress. Much of the media surrounding education privatization focuses on the National Education Association’s opposition to charter schools. However, liberals must segregate perception from reality. The prevailing perception is that charter schools work better than public schools; the reality is that they don’t. The perception is that the NEA is fighting educational progress; the reality is that the NEA is saving the public education system from deregulation and from filtering public funds into private pockets.

It’s no secret that the most qualified individuals will migrate towards the highest paying jobs. In order to get great teachers, our schools need to offer competitive wages. In many cases, higher wages are a result of collective bargaining through unionization. For example, before the modern teacher union movement formed in the 1950s, teachers earned less than car washers in New York City. Union action is necessary because power only concedes to power. Thus, the fact that deregulated schools do not hire union employees and do not allow their current employees to unionize represents a great threat, not only to the education unions but also to the students that both groups serve. If teachers can’t stand up for themselves, who will stand up for them? If schools can’t hire quality teachers, how will students achieve highly? Educators should not be underpaid altruists, they should be highly respected and well-compensated professionals.

I do not mean to suggest the infallibility of the NEA. Certainly, many of the union’s positions have faults and many of the union’s members are incompetent. However, that the NEA continues to fight for higher wages and continues to battle deregulation in the education sector is not a mistake. It is only by working with the NEA and by incentivizing education over profit that our education system will take the long jump back to respectability.

What is a charter school?

 A charter school is a school funded by the public but overseen by outside institutions. A charter school can be run by a group of individuals, a university, or a company. After the founding party writes its charter, its school can run independently of the school board, deciding who can go to the school, what to teach, and how to spend the allotted money. For-profit operators (or EMOs) run over one-quarter of all charter schools in the United States with extremely little regulation. That means the public is pumping money allotted for education into private pockets without demanding much in the way of oversight.

Excerpts from the AFT Charter School Report:
? Charter school teachers are less experienced and lower paid than teachers in other public schools.

? Charter schools generally obtain funding for the type of students they educate that is comparable to other public schools. Because charter schools operate on a small level, they do not reap the benefits of economy of scale that school districts do. As a result, the charters spend more on administration than other public schools.

? Charter school students generally score no better (and often do worse) on student achievement tests than other comparable public school students.

? Charter schools have not been held to the “bargain” they made—trading freedom from rules for increased accountability.

? Charter schools were supposed to experiment with new curricula and classroom practices, but they have proven no more innovative than other public schools.

? The justification for charter schools has moved from one that is based on education and innovation to one that is based on choice and competition. Yet charter schools provide a narrower range of services to a more homogeneous student body, and “competition” from charter schools has not brought about significant educational change in other public schools.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools