Certainly, the randomized control trials (RCTs) have been quite revelatory in the benefits of charter schools, and they offer evidence to counter criticism of charters only succeeding by cherry-picking the best students. Yet, that doesn't mean that charters don't continue to act and succeed based on the choices of motivated students. That is, without doubt, the norm. And there has been no example of a charter model being effectively applied to a neighborhood school whose students did not opt in to the model. And, the case of Cole Middle School in Denver exemplifies the failure that results when that is attempted. Despite the success of KIPP charters nationwide, the KIPP leaders and model failed when they were contracted to simply implement it in Cole. And KIPP eventually backed out of Cole when the neighborhood rejected the model. And, reform advocates must not discount the reality that only 20% of charters actually outperform neighborhood schools, while 20% perform worse.
However, the charter model has great value for the entire educational system. A teacher's view of charters would simply evaluate the effectiveness and commit to the idea whenever applicable. If a charter model is doing well, it should be expanded. If hundreds of students more than a charter's capacity commit to it, then districts should simply find a way to let them in. Let the kids go where they want, and open the model in a new building - even in a school-within-a-school model if necessary. Just allow the opportunity to succeed. There's no argument against that.
No comments:
Post a Comment