tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9725220.post5815885549771962873..comments2023-11-05T05:39:14.998-05:00Comments on Going to the Mat: A Nation At Risk Turns 25Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01352443552682708733noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9725220.post-16004644857032810442008-05-02T08:25:00.000-04:002008-05-02T08:25:00.000-04:00Interesting post, Matt....and one that I largely a...Interesting post, Matt....and one that I largely agree with. There is much need for change in education and I hope that we'll see external pressures force change to happen. <BR/><BR/>I have two concerns, though:<BR/><BR/>1. I think some of the external pressures and criticisms that are placed on public schools are unfair. Consider the comparisons that people make between charter school performance and public schools. <BR/><BR/>Without the traditional barriers that come with the myriad of requirements placed on public schools, charter schools are free to educate in a way that is developmentally appropriate and motivational for their students. <BR/><BR/>Those same opportunities don't currently exist for public schools---which are strangled by requirements and external control. <BR/><BR/>Our response to that dichotomy has been to point fingers at "the failure" of the system. I'd argue that a more responsible action would be to identify what is working in charter schools and extend those opportunities to public schools as well. <BR/><BR/>That's something that doesn't seem to have happened---and it makes me question whether suppport of charter schools isn't just a way to take more jabs at public schools. <BR/><BR/>2. I also worry about which children are taking advantage of opportunities like public schools and charter schools. I'll openly admit that I haven't done enough research to speak with knowledge, but it seems to me that students of poverty are less likely to take advantage of charter/home school opportunities than students of wealth. <BR/><BR/>That concerns me for two reasons. Most importantly, it only exacerbates the gap between rich and poor in our country----a gap that I think needs to be addressed in a meaningful way before we can live up to our "justice for all" claims in the Pledge. <BR/><BR/>But it also creates unfair comparisions again with public schools. I see charter schools with selective admissions policies compared to public schools all the time in the press where I'm from. <BR/><BR/>Recently, a charter high school was celebrated for having 95% of their kids on grade level in the newspaper while a public high school was criticized for having less than 60% of their students on grade level. <BR/><BR/>What the reporter failed to mention was that the charter high school requires that all students be on grade level in math in order to gain admission. <BR/><BR/>Now, I'm not opposed to selective admissions policies or charter schools that work creatively to offer options and generate solutions that the public schools don't currently offer. In fact, I welcome that innovation and see it as an engine for driving change in all schools. <BR/><BR/>But I wonder whether or not some critics are using unfair comparisions as cudgels against the public schools. <BR/><BR/>Does this make any sense? Am I standing on solid ground from a logical standpoint?<BR/><BR/>Bill Ferriter<BR/>http://teacherleaders.typepad.com/the_tempered_radicalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com