The Limitations of Charter Schools - Article Example

July 23, Academic Success through a Changed Public Education System: The Limitations of Charter Schools and the Opportunities for Growth of Public Schools Charter schools are getting widespread public attention and praise because some of its schools deliver better learning results than public schools. Waiting for Superman,’ directed by Davis Guggenheim, exposes the weaknesses of the American public education system and reveals the strengths of charter schools. Guggenheim argues that public schools are not doing well because of bad teachers that teacher unions protect. In “The Myth of Charter Schools,” Diane Ravitch asserts that Guggeinheim is wrong because not all charter schools provide excellent results and many actually perform the same as public schools and some are even worse off than the latter. Moreover, she highlights that Guggenheim fails to underline that social factors contribute too to the dismal performance of students in public schools, specifically income and family conditions (Ravitch 2). The government should invest more in changing the public education system to one that supports the education profession and in addressing the interconnected social factors that affect learning than in expanding charter schools because charter schools have its limitations, while public schools have diverse opportunities for growth. Charter schools are not always miracle performers in attaining student success, charter schools are more expensive to maintain than public schools, charter schools facilitate the privatization of the American education system which can benefit corporations more than the public and the students, the public education system has its share of successes because it has good teachers and administrators too, and because having the best teachers and funds are not the only critical factors in achieving student success. Charter schools are not the miracle solutions to poorly-performing public schools, since some also have the same or poorer academic results than the latter. Guggeinheim emphasizes several charter schools whose majority of students goes to college because they have higher reading and math scores compared to other public school students. Ravitch wonders why Guggeinheim focuses only on charter schools that are top performers without indicating those charter schools that are not performing quite as well as the former. She notes statistics that prove that charter schools are not always the best schools around by citing the study of Stanford economist Margaret Raymond. Raymond conducted the CREDO study that examined student math performance for the country’s 5,000 charters and concluded that 17 % were gaining better results than matching traditional public schools, 37% were worse than public schools, and 46% had the same outcomes as public schools (Ravitch 1). Ravitch shows that Guggeinheim’s premise that charter schools produce better results because of better teachers is false since the former do not greatly surpass public school performance. Statistics indicate that Guggenheim overgeneralizes the success of a handful of charter schools to promote them as a whole, which results to the inaccurate undercutting of the performance of public schools. Aside from the inconsistent results of charters schools, the government should focus more on developing the public school system because charter schools are more expensive to maintain than public schools. Guggeinheim asserts that the U.S. is spending more now per student in public schools than decades ago. His point is that money is not the issue, but the quality of teachers in public schools is. Ravitch, however, points out that charter schools actually spend more per student, so money remains as an important issue in education. She asserts that, Geoffrey Canada, who is the known developer of Harlem Children’s Zone, has hundreds and thousands of dollars of support for his students, while SEED charter boarding school “spends $35,000 per student, as compared to average current spending for public schools of about one third that amount” (2). In other words, charter schools are using up more money than Guggeinheim shows, so they are actually more expensive to maintain. The government should also invest more in the public school system and maximize this investment by focusing on the improvement of teacher education and development, while providing for the other basic needs of at-risk children, because these are also important factors in improving learning outcomes (Ravitch 2). Charter schools cannot replace public schools that struggle with lower funds and still face the same pressure of providing good learning results. Charter schools are not the solution to insufficient funds to the education system since they also need large funds to be operated. Besides the expenses of charter schools, charter schools facilitate the privatization of the American education system which can benefit corporations more than the public and the students. Guggeinheim does not highlight the fact that for-profit organizations are using charter schools to privatize education and to make large profits. Ravitch, on the contrary, exposes this fact. She asserts that charter schools can actually be ruthless in declining and removing poorly-performing students and in not doing their original purpose of collaborating with public schools to help improve the general direction of the whole public education system. She gives this example: “…Canada kicked out his entire first class of middle school students when they didn’t get good enough test scores to satisfy his board of trustees” (2). Charter schools feel the pressure of providing excellent results, which suggests that they value profits more than actually helping every needy, at-risk student to get to college. Moreover, charter schools are directly competing with public schools. They are supposed to help public schools be better schools, but: “Today, charter schools are promoted not as ways to collaborate with public schools but as competitors that will force them to get better or go out of business” (Ravitch 2). Ravitch demonstrates what Guggeinheim fails to do- to reveal the ills of charter schools because it is run by for-profit organizations, so they want to eject public schools and make more money by running the public education system. These organizations focus on profit than actually helping disadvantaged students, so they are not contributing to true changes in the public education system of the U.S. Furthermore, the film is misleading because it demonizes the public education system when the latter also has its share of successes because it has good teachers and administrators too. Guggeinheim talks about public schools in general, such as where in every state, students are barely reaching the necessary proficiency for math and reading subjects, among others. He also argues that public schools are poor performers because of many bad teachers that only get transferred from one school to another because union contracts state that they cannot be fired. Guggeinheim describes the process of the “dance of the lemons” where lemons refer to bad teachers and they are only exchanged across public schools in one state, and that every state has its own lemon-exchanging policies. Essentially, he blames teacher unions for preserving these bad teachers and rejecting reforms that connect pay and employment to actual teacher performance. Ravitch rejects this simplification of public school teachers. She wonders why Guggeinheim does not mention other public schools and teachers who are performing quite well: “No successful public school teacher or principal or superintendent appears in the film; indeed there is no mention of any successful public school, only the incessant drumbeat on the theme of public school failure” (1). Ravitch is right that the public school system has good teachers and administrators too and some of these schools actually perform well. The public school system itself, including its teachers, thus, are not the ones to be blamed for the overall poor performance of public school students. The government will be taking two steps backward if it focuses on charter schools rather than examining the best policies, standards, and practices of top-performing public schools and studying how they can be applied in other public schools. Finally, the government must invest more in changing the public education system as a whole because having the best teachers and funds through charter schools are not the only critical factors in achieving student success. Guggeinheim has a dominant premise that the best teachers are the most important factors for the best learning outcomes. He states: “You cant have a great school without great teachers” (Guggeinheim, Waiting for Superman’). Teachers are the most important ingredient for student success for him. Studies, showed, on the contrary, that teachers are the single or the most crucial determiner of student success. Ravitch argues that family and other social factors are altogether more powerful in affecting learning outcomes. She mentions the study of University of Washington economist Dan Goldhaber who learned that 60% of achievement is attributed to non-school factors, including family income and family background (i.e. education level of mothers) (Ravitch 2). Poverty and family issues produce burdens that disable students from concentrating in school and in aspiring for college after high school. If the government wants to improve student success, it has to go beyond schools and address other social factors too, especially poverty. Moreover, it if wants to emulate Finland, it should follow its good practices too. Ravitch states that: “Finland has a national curriculum…[which] includes the arts, sciences, history, foreign languages, and other subjects that are essential to a good, rounded education. Finland also strengthened its social welfare programs for children and families” (2). The government should also address changes in many aspects of the education system and in social welfare programs to ensure the success of its students. Hence, the answer to poor learning outcomes is not more charter schools, but a comprehensive approach to the education system’s problems and related social issues. Charter schools are not the only and best solution to the problems of poor student performance of public school students because having the best teachers are not the only factors involved in student success. The government should invest more in changing the public education system into something that develops teachers to become expert educators and to providing the basic needs of students so that they can focus on learning instead of thinking about the food they have to eat or problems at home. Furthermore, charter schools have numerous weaknesses too, such as average to poor outcomes, large expenses, and privatization effects. Charter schools are not the miracle pills to public education woes, but a way of enlightenment for what the government has to do for its public education system and for its social welfare programs, so that these solutions can together support the formation of well-rounded students who have the competencies needed to be successful in their aspired professions and jobs. Works Cited Ravitch, Diane. “The Myth of Charter Schools.” The New York Review of Books, 2010 Nov. 11. Web. 21 July 2014. . Waiting for Superman. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Paramount Vantage, 2010. Film. Read More