Charter schools in Georgia remain largely metro Atlanta institutions because that’s where the students, the deep labor pool and the money are.
The main proponents of charters in the Georgia Legislature have never been rural lawmakers who stayed on the sidelines in the charter school debate because it didn't impact their constituents. And I have had charter companies tell me their interest is solely metro Atlanta, that they do not see viability in rural Georgia.
In a new blog posting on YEP (Young Education Professionals) , education policy researcher Matt Richmond argues the charter school model doesn't make sense in rural areas.
Credit: John Spink jspink@ajc.com
Credit: John Spink jspink@ajc.com
A former international development worker, Richmond uses the failed famine relief efforts in Malawi to illustrate how government responses to disasters can worsen the destruction, writing, “There was a common belief among development ‘experts’ at the time that governments were too involved in their economies and in service provision, and that introducing market forces would improve the system. There are many education leaders today who say the same thing, and it’s this thought process that underlies the premise of charter schools. In urban areas, with more infrastructure, money, and greater population densities, it’s a solid premise with a lot of potential. But rural charters are a bad idea for many of the same reasons ‘market liberalization’ was a disaster in southern Africa.”
Here is an excerpt. Read Richmond's full blog here.
Given these issues, the only real reason to support rural charters is an idealistic belief in maximizing choice for all, regardless of circumstance. But more bad choices aren't a victory for anyone.
About the Author
