The article "The Myth of Charter Schools" by Diane Ravitch was very interesting. She begins the article by talking about David Guggenheim's documentary "Waiting for Superman". As I started reading I almost felt attacked. Although I am not teaching now, when I do teach I will be teaching in a public school system.
Guggenheim's thought's and opinions (not facts) were very harsh. He states that bad teachers create bad students, and the bad teachers are protected by unions so they can't be fired. I do believe in some instances this could have potential truth, but not in the broad spectrum he portrayed it to be. Information can always be twisted, and be made to look better by manipulating the facts to fit the point someone is trying to make. In this case, the facts are not only manipulated, but they are fabricated. By doing this he has created the stereotype that all public schools are bad, and filled with teachers that don't care, and that all charter schools are wonderful, and filled with top notch teachers.
Guggenheim fails to acknowledge any correlation bewteen the students families income, or the budgets of the schools. In many cases the charter schools get three times the funding per student then public schools do. Along with the administrators making 3-4 times as much as some public school administrators. Should money effect a child's education? No. Does money effect a child's education? Yes.
At the end of the article Ravitch point out how schools in different countries, that are higher ranking than the United States view their school system. For example, Finland has 15% less of their students living in poverty then the U.S. does. Finland also has a far more intense screening system for teachers, I believe this only benefits the students, but the teachers also. Teachers have higher salaries, more support, and better working conditions. All of that seem to have a correlation to higher student performance.
In the end I believe any school can be amazing, rather it is public, or private. The school needs to give the students, and teachers the support, and resources they require. Curriculum needs to be relevant, and meaningful to students. School should be a place that students can go, and their only concern should be learning, and growing as students. But, that would be in a perfect world...how do we get there is the reality of the society we live in now?
In this Blog I talked about twisting information to meet needs. An example of this would be Finland had 5% of students living in poverty, the U.S. has 20% of students living in poverty. Another way to look at it is Finland has 15% less students living in poverty...or 1/20 of the students in Finland are living in poverty while 1/5 of the students living in the U.S. are living in poverty.
ReplyDeleteI watched the film "Waiting for Superman" as well as a few other documentaries on Geoffrey Canada. What frustrates me is when we compare unlike variables and draw conclusions from them that as you pointed out can be skewed even further through the creative use of statistics! One of Canada's points in the film was how he took students from underprivileged homes and made them into college graduates. Sounds wonderful! But we cannot replicate his system with public education. For one thing, he took those children out of their homes and housed them on-campus. Sure if my students were guaranteed sleep, food, clean clothes, a stable environment then they also would be able to focus on their studies. Also, his method of holding a "lottery" where families gathered and cried with joy when their child was accepted is a little different from my students families who are in and out of truancy court. The children attending his school know their families are counting on them to do well and fully support their education. Show me how you can do this in public education and I will be the first on board!
ReplyDelete