In Search of...."Pretty Good"

From the July 16 New York Times:


"Some parents in affluent suburbs such as Millburn, N.J., are working to keep out specialized "boutique" charter schools, which they say would divert resources and students from public schools. They say charter schools, conceived as alternatives to low-performing urban schools for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, are unnecessary in successful districts. Supporters say the charters expand school choices that should be available to all students."


Since I no longer have a separate blog devoted to education, readers of Dove Mountaineers will have to put up with the occasional rant about education.  And there is so much to rant about!

First of all, the parents in Milford would not have come up with this "objection" if

1. The teachers' unions had not already "alerted " them to this danger and brainwashed them with greedy and irrelevant hysteria.
2. They had not been throughly grounded in collectivism and anti-free enterprise proganda by attending public schools themselves.
3. They themsleves had attended very rare and "boutiquish" schools which teach logic.

Applying said logic, look closely at the two allegations against the charter schools in this article:

They "divert resources" from public schools.    However,

• Charter schools are public schools.   They are government controlled, government funded, and do not restrict admissions, except by virtue of size limitations.
• They have a right to the same resources as any other public school.  The monies ("resources") follow the student.  If the students choose to go to a particular public school, the resources will go there.
• No state that grants charters sets aside special resource provisions for charter schools that are not avilable to any other government funded school.

They "divert students" from public schools.

      And here is the real objection.  According to the political agenda of the teachers' unions, parents and students should never have the freedom to choose a performing school over an underperforming school, because it threatens their job security. 
      How? If charter school A is clearly outperforming neighborhood school B, it will gradually (or rapidly, in some cases) siphon off students from neighborood school B.  And with the students, comes the per/pupil share of that district's tax money.   Since staffing is based on enrollment, some teachers at neighborhood school B will eventually lose their jobs.  They could, you might suppose, just switch over and teach at charter school A, and no doubt some do. 
      However, charter school A probably outperformed neighborhood school B by: 
               (a) hiring only campetent teachers with a willingness to improve at their craft;          
               (b) holding teachers accountable for the performance of their students;          
               (c)  dismissing incompetent teachers;  
               (d)  requiring each teacher to teach to a standard set by the school itself, instead of forming an island of non-achieving autonomy within his or her classroom.

Make this your template whenever you hear or read something about school choice:   Opponents of school choice believe schools exist to provide jobs for incompetent people.  The benefits to students never come into the discussion.   If adults do not want there to be a high-achieving school in their district, these adults want America's future to be lead by marginally educated graduates of mediocre schools. 

But we are in crisis mode, and "pretty good" leadership is not going to get this country out of the mire it is in.  Especially "pretty good" leadership that believes that the state is the only beneficent provider of education, and that a fictional egalitarianism is not only achievable (it isn't), but desirable. (?!)