By allowing kids to
leave regular public schools for alternatives and by forcing unionized schools to compete with nonunion schools, choice ensures that the unions will lose members and resources - and thus become smaller and less politically powerful.
For when families are allowed to
leave the regular public schools for new options — charter schools or (via vouchers or tax credits) private schools — the regular public schools lose money and jobs, and so do the incumbent teachers in those schools.
Charter schools do not bring on equality; in fact they EXACERBATE INEQUALITY, as they tend to skim off the higher - performing students,
leaving the regular public schools with a greater concentration of troubled children.
Not exact matches
The new version would
leave the state with the same result as did its predecessor: Charter
school students would find themselves in classes taught by teachers whose training was far less rigorous than that demanded of
regular public school teachers.
To be sure, there are often good reasons to place children out of district at
public expense — no district can serve all students equally well — but neither are there always clear and obvious distinctions to be made between who can be educated in a
regular school, those who need alternative settings and those like Adrian who run afoul of the rules so frequently, or who are penalized so often and systematically, that they simply give up and
leave.
For example, commentator Richard Kahlenberg has argued that «the big difference between KIPP and
regular public schools... is that whereas struggling students come and go at
regular schools, at KIPP, students
leave but very few new students enter.
Their mission is to protect the jobs of teachers in the
regular public schools, and real technological change — which outsources work to distant locations, allows students and money to
leave, substitutes capital for labor, and in other ways disrupts the existing job structure — is a threat to the security and stability that the unions seek.
Most of the students who
leave ALS
schools for adult education programs have personal or family issues, worry that they will «age out» of
public school at 21, or are frustrated with the time and effort it takes to earn a
regular diploma, she said.
We're often accused of being hostile to the
regular public -
school system, but our real gripe is with its near - monopoly — which
leaves it free to keep on serving the interests of its «stakeholders» rather than the students.
An article in the Oct. 25, 2006, issue of Education Week on charter
schools in the District of Columbia («At Age 10, Booming D.C. Charters Feel «Growing Pains»») should have said that 118 out of 146
regular public schools in the city did not make adequate yearly progress under the No Child
Left Behind Act for last
school year.
Regular public schools were
left with concentrations of traumatized kids having mental or physical problems and suffering from generations of poverty.
And yet, «results,» or rather, academic improvement, act more like a fig
leaf, especially in light of numerous recent studies that show charter
schools, taken on the whole, actually do a worse job of educating students than
regular public schools.
«Otherwise it creates a downward spiral, where every
public school has an incentive to convert to a charter and / or every family has an incentive to choose a better - funded charter
school,
leaving fewer and fewer students — and less and less funding — in the
regular school system to cover the legacy costs.»