Charles Ives – The Unanswered Question
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Today’s L.A. Times article is sure to ruffle some feathers.The title “An unplanned revolution in L.A.’s public schools” seems to suggest that the solution to the woes of public education in the city of Los Angeles has finally been arrived at in the form of charter schools. Unfortunately, as the authors admit within the article body, this is far from the case. Let me summarize:
I. There’s lots of charters in LA. Lots.
II. Most score better than regular schools.
III. There are three non-trivial critiques to the aforementioned point II.
And although for me the jury is still out on the notion of charter schools, what irks me the most is the way in which the debate has been framed, most often occurring as a series of oscillating jabs (in the form of Times articles, blog posts, and now even, tweets) betweens advocates of the different camps, frequently demonizing and disrespecting each other in the process. What follows is My 3 Wishes for the 2010 Charter School vs. Public School discussion:
1. Charter School advocates must: actually address the three main concerns (see paragraphs 18, 19 in Times article) of “student selection”, “student retention”, and “student accessibility”. Charter schools must either somehow statistically control for these variables when comparing scores, or else adopt similar policies as most LAUSD schools (Green Dot’s Locke at least follows the first main concern), without which, like apples and oranges, simple scores cannot be compared in this one-dimensional manner. If charter schools have better instruction, then show that it is actually better instruction that is making the difference.
2. Public School advocates must: actually address the concerns that defecting parents and students actually raise, namely that (1) LAUSD has held on to bad teachers, of which each year, between 25 and 150 kids are subjected to, and (2) there is little, if any, student accountability without which, the notion of “high expectations” becomes mere vacuous words, and some kids inevitably figure out that they actually don’t need to do anything in school. It’s these kids that I would, as a parent, work to keep my son or daughter away from.
3. EVERYBODY (both charter and public school advocates) must: dispose of the attitude that a legitimate concern against the dogmas of their particular camp are somehow a personal affront to themselves or call into question their love of educating children! This is what must end. In order to do this, we’ve all got to do a few things. First, we’ve each got to assume (at least initially) that the person with whom we’re speaking genuinely cares for kids. Personally, there’s nothing that p****s me off more than when someone implicitly accuses me of not caring about kids. Second, we’ve each got to raise our questions and concerns in a way that actually seeks a valid response, rather than raising questions that are meant to simply pigeon-hole our (now) opponent. Third, we’ve got to hear these questions and actually answer them with facts, rather than accusations about what the question itself might imply about the asker. And fourth, when concerns are legitimately addressed, we need to be able to take that and then ask ourselves “How can I now adapt this to better meet the needs of the kids in Los Angeles?”
No less than that is required in order for all of us who are advocating for kids in Los Angeles to actually do something to make a difference in the lives of these kids.
Comments (0) 
Just because you CAN play “Eruption”, doesn’t mean you SHOULD; particularly when your audience is entirely comprised of restaurant patrons who are expecting nothing more than a bit of ambient folk music.
Themocracy