I am for charter schools because I think innovation and change can help education. Charter schools can, in theory, experiment with new institutional parameters that may, in theory, produce better results. I may want to teach in a charter school one day and I may want my kids to go to charter schools.
BUT, the amendment as written is deceptive. The amendment mentions "local" control. But it is the opposite: a state bureaucracy will approve charter schools initiated by people outside the school district. The main lobbying and advertising is from private charter school companies, the majority of which are from outside of Georgia.
The way charter schools are set up now is the epitome of local control and democracy. The local school board sets up the terms of the contract---"the charter"-- with whatever entity wants to set up an innovative school. The locally elected official releases local funds and holds the charter school accountable for the education of the children in that district. Democracy isn't perfect, but you know a school board election can be won by 30 concerned parents.
That is better than a state commissioned bankrolled by private corporations (maybe corporation make better schools, maybe I want to work for one, but I don't like their political influence--some of the best performing charters have been started by parents or alliances of parents and teachers). We already have 200 charter schools in the state of Georgia and new ones are opening up every year, all created by school boards.
That is my main argument.
BY THE WAY, across the country charter schools have so far not out performed public schools. There are anecdotal success and failures but studies show no statistical difference in aggregate.
That is surprising because charter school should perform better because they have two huge advantages over public schools: first, a pool of families who care enough about education to take the initiative to self-select into them and second, they don't have to face the staggeringly crippling local, state, and national bureaucracy that chokes public education every day.
But I am in favor of charter schools because, in theory, they could be centers of more choice and innovation in education. Maybe I want to start a charter school one day. But I want to work with a locally elected school board.
Irony: People usually against big government are in favor of moving to local control away from state bureaucracy. The committee deciding charters would be appointed, not elected, and would cost at least a million dollars. Eric Erickson, in his 10/18 broadcast, stated that we need to take local control away from local government because local government isn't working. We need intervention from big government?
Sigh: most of the advertising and radio personalities supporting the charter school amendment focuses on only one possible innovation of charter schools- the ability to fire teachers. There are tons of bad teachers out there, but that is not one of the main problems, in my opinion. But promoting the idea that I am lazy and incompetent in my job seems to be the best way to sell the idea of the state charter commission. Isn't time to a have a real conversation about public education?
