Several days ago I wrote about a small group of local parents' efforts to open a charter school with an arts focus, and their interest in locating it at our neighborhood school. This weekend there was an opportunity to meet with the group face to face. I have to say, I did not come away with any better of an impression of the whole project than I had before. To clarify, what they want to use is a Reggio Emilia approach -- which is a model from Italy, based on philosophies ranging from John Dewey to Howard Gardner. Fine and good so far, except that it really is intended for preschool, and they are talking about applying it K-5.
I guess my biggest problem with it is that they want to make it a charter school. In a brief history of US education, charter schools originated on the same rootstock as vouchers and school choice. They are a form of school privatization. That means a small group of parents who cannot or do not want to pay for private school, want their children to get a private school education at public expense. And as my hero Jonathan Kozol points out, school choice programs skim the cream from the top of any school community -- the families that have the resources and wherewithal to know that they have a choice -- and leave all the rest behind with reduced funds.
My city has always had a very good school system. Don't get me wrong; I can find plenty of ways they could improve, but overall it's pretty good. In fact, outside of parochial schools we have very few private school options and -- as this group has been quick to point out as a fault -- only 2 charter schools. I think that speaks well of our school district and of the democratic mindset of our community. But we are a growing city and people come here from places that are bigger, where sending your kid to a private school is more the norm, and they are apalled that "middle class families don't have more choices." (That comment has been echoed by 2 of 3 spring mayoral candidates. Guess I'm voting for the 3rd.)
OK, back to the meeting. It was civil enough, but when I brought up my charter school concerns, they said, "We never thought of it that way." When we expressed concern that their cost saving idea of sharing our principal might overwhelm her and in fact drive her away, they said, "We never thought of that." When they said that the students wouldn't be going to specialists for art, music, and technology because all of those things would be taught in he room by the classroom teacher I almost lost it. "What does the union have to say about that?" I asked. "We haven't talked to the union yet."
Well, I know full well what the union will say: Elementary teachers have fought long and hard for equitable planning and prep time, and it would set a dangerous precedent to give it up. (I agree.) And this charter school group will go public, saying that the union is obstructing innovations that incidentally could bring thousands of much needed dollars in grants to the cash-poor school district. (Notice a theme? If you don't like their ideas you're "old school" and "obstructionist.")
I'm proud of my district. They don't always make decisions I like, but they've made some pretty courageous big decisions. Like giving up a lucrative exclusive contract with Coca Cola because we shouldn't sell out to corporations. Like turning down the federal Reading First grant last year because it seemed to favor certain prepackaged curriculums. (Boy did they get flack for that, but then this fall the news surfaced that -- surprise, surprise -- the administration of the entire program was rotten to the core.) Like hiring a district-wide LGBT resource teacher.
I also wonder if this initiative goes through, what's to keep other special interest groups from trying to get their charter school in. (In fact, I was coming up with a short list of potential charter schools: The Elvish/Klingon Immersion Language School, The Disney School, The Exxon-Mobil Science School, The Patriot School ...)
They kept talking about
traditional classrooms vs. the classrooms they envision. I told them how much that offended me.
There were some parents there who are interested in this initiative, and it felt so much like it was all about them getting what they wanted for
their children, but couched in terms of "we'll be raising the bar for all students." How? 44 children will be served by this school, if it goes through. 44 of 11,748 students. When I pointed out that my kids have had a great exprience in school overall, they said, "Well some children are more
resilient that others." I wonder what gives them the impression their children are so fragile.
I kept thinking of a t-shirt I've seen that says, "Over 25% of human genes are the same as a banana. Get over yourself."
Anyway, I'm worried. If this group can prove that their school will be "cost neutral" (i.e. not cost the school district anything) there are board members who might just go along with it. Because it may be the politically expedient thing to do. Yuck.