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.
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.