Charters and its discontents

“Disadvantaged children have been cemented into an underclass by third-rate schools” argues the New York Times' Nicholas Kristof in a recent op-ed entitled, “Democrats and Schools.” Teacher Unions and the impossible-to-get-rid-of-bad teachers are the villains and charter schools are the good guys. But let’s wait a minute before we clean out the Augean stables.

In a recent Boston Globe story, it was reported that half of Boston’s Charter school high school students fail to graduate, and, according the Kathleen McCartney, Dean \of the Harvard Graduate School of Education , this is same as the public school rate for urban high schools . Moreover, we have the recent Stanford University study reporting that charter schools do not outperform public schools. This part is really odd, given that the charters cherry-pick their students and teachers. It seems that the "whiz kids" who teach in the charters are no better at their task than the "unionized dinosaurs" in the public schools.

Yet, charters have their fans as well as many parent advocates. Since it is not about academics, it must be about atmospherics. As parent-involvement is a must at the charters, a well-behaved student body will be evident (as any unruly are sent back to the public schools). With the charter movement, we seem to be on the road to a two-track public school system—raucous, underfunded publics and the well-mannered charters. And this just might be the beginning of the dismantling and privatizing of the public schools. And we will still be left with disadvantaged youths.