Controversy Over Charter Schools
The New York Times published two articles about charter schools in the past few days: the first, a profile of a school already in operation in Minnesota, and the second, a report on a proposal for a new school in New York. The school in Minnesota emphasizes East African culture; the school in New York would specialize in Hebrew language. What they have in common is that both are generating controversy.
Critics of these and other charter schools assume that public schools should be a “melting pot” where minorities abandon their unique languages and cultures and adopt American culture. Here’s a representative quote from the first article:
“One of the primary reasons that American society supports public schools is to give everyone a solid civic education,” said Diane Ravitch, an education historian, “the sort of education that comes from learning together with others from different backgrounds.”
And here’s the answer the article gives to that lofty ideal:
But Dr. Suárez-Orozco says the reality is that most new immigrants become isolated in public schools, and that large numbers of them become alienated over time and fail to graduate.
I think there’s value in specialized cultural charter schools for academic reasons, in addition to the possible sociological benefits. How many high schoolers sit through a few hours of French a week, only to graduate with little knowledge of the language? They might have done better had they started in an earlier grade at an immersion charter school like this one in Kansas City. College students pay thousands of dollars to study abroad and learn about foreign cultures during a short period of time. They could have easily absorbed the same information while attending a culture-specific charter school.
We hear few criticisms of hour-long language classes or limited cultural education programs. But when a school spends every morning teaching a foreign language or culture — i.e., enough time to teach it successfully — then the outcry begins. If students learn too much about some individual subject, they’re not blending in with their peers who study it in less depth.
Students who are interested in math and science shouldn’t have to abandon those interests and assimilate in a school specializing in performing arts — or in a “regular” school, for that matter. And the same goes for students who want to learn foreign languages.
I was fortunate in attending a magnet middle school and high school. Typical public schools wouldn’t have offered the interesting computer programming classes I took which have shaped my education path, not in the way I expected them to, but certainly for the better. I would be fine with charter schools taking specialization much farther. The kids will surely benefit from such an area-specific head start.
Plus, if it gets the kids excited about learning, that’s more important than almost anything else.
Comment by Josh Smith — January 12, 2009 @ 3:32 p.m.
I have seen nothing but elitist attitudes and behaviors in the charter and private schools my children attended in two states, Wi. and Id. the curriculum was often misguided in an effort to be challenging. I moved and put my children in public schools. All three are attending prestigious colleges and doing exceptionally well. Unfortunately I did not move until my children had seen drug abuse, suicides and parental disregard of these problems. I feel badly for children who need help, whether special services, special education for gifted minds and yet are only seen as children who must achieve. Living together in a multi-skilled and multi-talented world is another aspect of education and I have found the many public schools my children attended to assisting in that and their academic success.
Comment by Diane Baumgart — May 12, 2009 @ 12:27 a.m.
Ms. Baumgart–It’s great that you found public schools that were right for your family. Unfortunately, many people encounter the problems you experienced in private and charter schools, in their assigned traditional public schools. Not everyone has the resources to move their kids to a different school, whether in their local area or in another state. I wouldn’t want to say that everyone has to attend a specific type of school–only that other families should have the same options to try different schools and see what’s best for them.
Comment by Sarah Brodsky — May 12, 2009 @ 8:36 a.m.
Indeed — one of the great things about school choice is that when you’re able to pick the type of school that you want your children to attend, you can pick a traditional public school if that’s what you want. There’s just no reason to presume that everybody else should make that same choice as well.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — May 12, 2009 @ 12:35 p.m.