Not the Magic Elixir, After All

perfect editorial in the NYT today: reining in charter schools.

the idea behind charter schools is, i admit, a promising one. use state/federal education money to create niche schools that serve those students marginalized by the unbelievably horrible public school financing system in which property taxes are used to fund schooling, thereby reproducing the conditions that produce impoverished school districts.

by being independent, the argument goes, charter schools are not tied to bureaucratic educational goals. students are freer to explore, to challenge received wisdom, and -- best of all -- are taught by teachers who want to work in these independent settings.

with a few exceptions, the charter school regime has been a failure. here in DC, which has by far the worst public schools in the country (thanks to congress' insistence on keeping the district a plantation of sorts), a few charter schools have done well. but many have had to close their doors -- and when they do, they leave children and parents worse off than if they had stayed in public schools.

this is compounded by the fact that most charters are, as the editorial mentions, run by private companies seeking to turn a profit. this is a horrible practice. public education is a common good and should, therefore, not be managed or operated by private industry. period. end of story.

if charters are to be successful, they need to be operated as public schools but without the constricting, dogmatic curriculum that makes public schools stifling.