Commenters on the AJC Get Schooled blog had a range of reaction to today’s guest column on the differences in charter schools and the importance of not lumping them together when discussing quality and approach. Here is a sampling of comments:
Redweather: And wouldn't it be just as fair to say that charter school advocates lump together all public schools?
Linux: Charter school opponents dislike charters because they disrupt the true dream of "public education advocates, which is not to deliver the best education possible to as many people as possible, but to use public education as a tool to transform and shape society. Basically, for them the "public" part is more important than the "education" part. Education takes a backseat for using the schools as a vehicle for economic and social reform. That is why a minor increase in racial segregation causes them to flip out, but decades of failed policies like social promotion, new math, whole language, etc. causes a shrug at worst and even defensive redefining of failure.
Scrappy: The best point of this article is that some charter schools are good, some bad. Some regular public schools are good, some bad. Some work for some kids, some work better for others. The "problem" I have with the whole charter school debate is that people think the creation of charter schools is somehow a catch all fix to the public education system. Which it is not.
Simmer: This is a timely topic as I sit here and wait for the results of the Drew Charter School lottery to be posted on the website. I still don't understand, however, how some here are saying that the charter system is only for the chosen ones. The charter schools I have been interested in have lotteries — run by professional accounting firms — so I don't see how we are saying they are "selecting" the best and brightest. Can someone help me out with that?
Batgirl: The author of the piece does not want anyone to lump her child's school in with other charters that might not be as successful, but lumping traditional schools together is what has brought about the cry for alternatives and resulted in the establishment of charter schools.
Chamblee: Charter school advocates (public school critics) want their schools to be considered on their own and not lumped together. They don't want to dismiss all public schools, yet they tend to do so. Their motivation is to provide alternatives to those that need them most, yet those that tend to do best in charters already do well. They are "hand-picked and thus predestined" – well, so say the opponents. If they are allowed time to achieve (with their local control) and properly funded (private & public dollars) they will solve many of our educational problems — they are the magic bullet. Any possible middle ground? Sure they say, but neither side concedes anything or gives an inch. Remind anyone of a body of leaders in Washington?
Why: Just like you can't lump all charter schools together, you can't lump all public schools together. At the elementary school in my neighborhood, many times when a child scores at the highest level on the CRCT, that child is withdrawn from the neighborhood school and sent to a "magnet" or "theme" school. However, the scores of those schools are all compared to each other. If I take all the best players and put them on one team, that team should outperform the other teams.
