This day on which we mark the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., is an appropriate time to think about our nation’s determination to revive a dual school system in urban districts: one for the “strivers” (the charters, as Mike Petrilli explained it in a post), and another for the kids unwilling or unable to enroll in a charter school (that is, those who are in public schools).
Yesterday, a teacher asked why parents would keep their children in public schools when charter schools are able to exclude the disruptive kids and provide homogeneous groups of well-behaved students.
Here, Jersey Jazzman adds his thoughts to the exchange on the blog:
An excellent discussion here. I wrote about this last week:
http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2013/01/segregation-by-behavior-chartery-secret.html
The sad fact is that we already do segregate the students in our public schools: we segregate them by the ability and willingness of their families to pay high prices for housing. If you can afford to pay in the high six-digits for a house in the leafy ‘burbs, then you can send your kid to a fabulous school that will not segregate her from high-achieving children, even if she’s struggling academically or behaviorally. That school will be well-resourced and have a broad and rich curriculum; you’ll also have much more influence on its administration through democratically elected school boards that will be far more responsive to your concerns than autocratic urban school leaders.
These are rights and privileges that come from wealth. They are not available to parents living in urban areas where school resources are being drained by both regressive tax structures and the proliferation of charters, and where citizens are increasingly disenfranchised from having a say in how their schools are run. We currently have a two-tiered system of eduction in this country, and it has nothing to do with how “gifted” the students are in each tier.
Again, I give Petrilli credit for finally addressing all of this. But let’s take it to its logical conclusion:
If we are really saying the issue in urban education is that the “disruptors” need to be separated out, then charters are a terrible way to do so. Folks like Petrilli who want to segregate the children this way have an obligation to propose a fair, transparent, and broad-based system of evaluation at the developmentally appropriate time to track children not just by ability, but by classroom behavior. That system needs to be free of racial, ethnic, gender, and socio-economic bias.
But, perhaps most importantly, it needs to be applied uniformly across our society. There should be no more recourse for wealthy parents to buy their way into a public school district that mainstreams their disruptive, underachieving child with the high-flyers, while poor children in cities are separated into castes.
Good luck trying to sell that one to the PTO, Mike.
Until Petrilli is ready to roll out his system, let’s at least all agree on his premise: the secret to “successful” charters is that they serve different students than neighboring public schools. That’s a big step forward in the debate, and one I’d be happy to see many others take.
Diane Ravitch's blog 