More on Charters - Part IV

One of the aspects of the charter movement that I find disturbing is the fact that charters have been formed as a 'choice' public school. In short, if you don't like the public school in your neighborhood then you can 'choose' a charter that may or may not be in the vicinity.

On the onet hand it may seem that the idea of 'choice' is a great idea but I think, notwithstanding the fact that some charters perform well, that simply opening up a charter is wrong on a couple of counts.

For one, simply opening a charter, while the neighborhood school continues (which is likely to occur), does not address the concerns and problems confronting the neighborhood school. In a sense, the problems are 'swept under the rug.' Opening a charter doesn't address the joblessness, poverty, cycle of hopelessness, and lack of safety that likely was behind opening the charter.

While some charters offer a comprehensive education, a number of them specialize in language arts, fine arts, science and the like. While these programs may be excellent in quality I believe that all elementary, junior high and high school students should have a thorough and comprehensive education.

I believe all students should be exposed to all courses of study; that is, they should have a liberal education. Young people need to be exposed to every course...from Art to Science and everything in between. It is incumbent upon public education to help open minds and to create an awareness of the world. The traditional public school has long done an excellent job on this front.

In my view, the idea of 'choice' (charter schools) limits the opportunity for this liberal education if the charter becomes a sort of specialty school. Young people don't need to specialize at this point in their lives

Dick