EDITOR'S NOTE: Lisa Graham Keegan fires back at my post from May 21. The original post generated such interest, and the stakes for education are so high, that I think it's important that she get equal time. This is her response (also posted on the original's comment section:
By Lisa Graham Keegan
Jon Talton is an extremely talented writer, in my view, so it was particularly un-fun to read his snarkiness directed at me. But my husband and I are fans in spite of ourselves and him, so I wrote Jon and he suggested I post something.
While I doubt it will happen, I hope folks will check the facts on public charter schools. The people who start them and run them are largely teachers, often formerly part of the union leadeship, who simply wanted to control the environment they teach in and be more effective for their students. Six of the 10 highest performing high schools in AZ are charters, and when you look at math it is 14 of 15.
To say this is a failed experiment is a head-in-the sand ridiculous statement. There are well over a million students in public charter schools in America. They usually serve a higher percentage of minority students,with many of the models such as KIPP, Uncommon Schools, Aspire Schools, Green Dot Schools, built around a mission to serve in low wealth urban settings where kids are horribly undeserved right now.
I find it amazingly ironic that people who claim to embrace innovation would believe we should not seek ways to re-invent our public education system to accomodate the initiative of those who know our kids best. There are some mind-blowing models out there, brought to us by teachers, who had to fight tooth- and-nail against their own colleagues just for the right to exist.
I agree it is correct to seek to raise the hopes of an entire neighborhood. But why not believe that you can do that in part by creating community in the school that exists there? Teacher-owned schools, community-run schools are all part of this movement. And it is growing steadily, but not fast enough to serve its waiting lists. How is that not "the public"?
Have you all spent much time talking to parents in low-income neighborhoods? Their schools often don't provide much hope.
Corey Booker, mayor of Newark who chose to live in one of the poorest neighborhoods in town long before he ran for mayor, is a strong avdocate for school choice and charters. And he is a Barack Obama supporter. This movement has crossed party lines while you were busy opposing it.
One of the things that frustrates me most about education is that affiliations seem to matter more than ideas. Let me make the world safe for you...there are A LOT of public charter school supporters on Barack Obama's team. Lots of them own these schools and are seeking to proliferate them.
The world will be a lot better for a whole bunch of kids if you will offer them your support. Or at least check your facts.
The back-and-forth of these two posts illustrates a core defect in our nation's way of doing things: either/or-ism.
Take a quick look at any - ANY - product or service out there in the world and you will always -- ALWAYS -- see that there are different approaches that make sense for different situations and market segments. There is no one size fits all. NONE.
Yet, when it comes to highly politicized topics like education, we routinely find otherwise talented and perceptive people embedding themselves and their world views in concrete, one-size-fits-all opinions. Either charter schools are BAD. Or, charter schools are GOOD.
It's a shame. Because all of us lose out on the more interesting and much more useful discussion about when and why and under what circumstances charter schools work well; when, why and under what circumstances they don't work well; when, why and under what circumstances public schools work well; and, when, why and under what circumstances public schools do not work so well.
This kind of commentary could actually help parents (and kids of a certain age) to look for patterns that make sense or don't make sense for them. Likewise, other constituencies such as school officials, teachers, voters and so forth.
Instead, what Jon and Keegan have done for us -- and they are typical -- is give us GOOD v. BAD.
Posted by: Doug | June 08, 2008 at 05:36 AM
Wow, LGK's response seems to completely miss the point. Nowhere did Jon make charter schools out to be a R v. D issue the way LGK did. Her response appears to counter imagined arguments against charter schools. The politically charged tone she created in her email is unnecessary and shows her true colors as a politician and partisan rather than an education advocate.
Posted by: AB | June 09, 2008 at 12:43 AM