I’m an educator at a public school and generally happy. My conservative family and I often get into unproductive debates about “school choice”, etc. Ultimately, they say I just like traditional schools because I’m selfish and like having the teachers’ union holding power over students’ education. That’s fine; I probably am biased and I know teachers’ unions are far from perfect and blameless.
My main criticisms of charters are the usual ones: they have much more leeway to kick students out who don’t follow the model. Additionally, they don’t have to place and educate high need students, but can simply say they can’t serve them. I spent a year at a charter and was in the same room when my coworker attempted to bar a student from attending because his IEP listed a genetically-linked syndrome. (Yes, I stood up for the student attending; the syndrome has a range of impact and his was pretty minor.) There’s no way my current school would ever do this. Even the KIPP schools, an oft-cited charter success story, have received criticism for high rates of attrition, with one website stating that 60/100 students leave or are kicked out (I think it was an anti-charter site, to be fair). You see the problem: charter schools can consolidate kids with resources, while public schools are there to absorb kids who don’t. Must be nice!
When I point this out, my dad doesn’t see any issue. He’s old school, racist, doesn’t believe privilege is a thing. If kids with behavioral issues are siloed until they turn 18 and head to jail, he’s fine with that. So he’s actually a pretty terrible advocate for charters.
So I’d like to hear from someone more knowledgeable: at charter proponents fine with the neediest kids with the lowest parental/financial/behavioral resources simply getting relegated to public schools?
Submitted July 14, 2022 at 10:03PM by ynocfyinco https://ift.tt/yTCXbPS
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario