“Teachers unions are the politically strongest of the organizations opposed to charter schools.”
- Charter Schools and Their Enemies
Much has been lamented about the education gap between whites and blacks, and the rich and the poor. The reasons for these disparities run the gamut from basic genetics to systemic racism, to a history of segregation, and good old-fashioned poverty. Yet, there are significant variables in why some learn, and others don’t. For instance, firstborn children typically have higher IQs than younger siblings, and therefore, do better in school. So, differences in learning and comprehension are not always the fault of someone or something. Yet, in their rush to solve the imbalance, policymakers have put all their chips on racial discrimination as the prevailing excuse. But, as you will see, when we consider the success of charter schools, most of these narratives are simply wrong.
Charter schools first began in the 1990s and currently account for less than 10 percent of the K-12 population. The central purpose of charter schools is to narrow the achievement gap by finding better ways of educating children. These alternative schools are initiated by private groups but must meet the educational criteria set by the state. While also funded by taxpayers, charter schools operate independently from the state-run school system. Currently operating in 45 states along with the District of Columbia, charter schools largely serve at-risk low-income populations who are primarily black and Hispanic. Many charter schools are located in the same building as the traditional public school, with students of equal socio-economic backgrounds. The overwhelming success of charter schools is reflected in the one million children who currently sit on waiting lists nationwide. Enrollment is typically determined by lottery, so acceptance is largely random.
While attendance at traditional public schools is mandatory by state law, attendance at charter schools is completely voluntary. Accountable to the parents, charter schools must perform like private markets to maintain their existence. While per-pupil costs are 26 percent less than those of traditional schools, charter schools spend up to 70 percent more time in the classroom with longer school days, longer weeks, and summer hours. Along with smaller classrooms and more independence, charter schools are also more accountable to end results, that is, of providing good education to their students. Their success, in part, has been realized by their return to the age-old idea of the 3 R’s: reading, (w)riting, and (a)rithmetic. Ironically, non-union teachers in charter schools tend to be less credentialed but produce better outcomes.
The curriculum of the traditional public school is increasingly focused on the achievement of social justice ideals like diversity and social cohesion while dismissing test results. Public schools are similarly more fixated on adhering to rules and regulations, which often makes it difficult and even impossible to fire bad teachers. Traditional schools appear more enamored with teachers' degrees and seniority than the plight of their students. Lax about discipline, traditional public schools see more violence, more incarcerations, and more teen pregnancies than their charter school counterparts.
One of the sorest spots for public school's acceptance of charter schools is money. Teacher’s union dues bring in billions of dollars and are directly tied to school enrollment. So, when students electing charter schools take their public money with them, they reduce enrollment in traditional schools. Thus, diminishing the number of teachers along with their corresponding dues. Because of these losses, there have been increasing attempts to keep charter schools out of school districts. These organized efforts reduce the growth of charter schools by refusing to lease or sell vacant or empty space along with onerous requirements that chip away their autonomy. Clearly, the remarkable success of charter schools is a direct threat to unionized traditional public schools.
The future of charter schools has predictably become political. In the 2016 election, 93 percent of teacher’s spending went to Democrats. This has created a growing alliance between the teacher’s union and the Democrat party. Therefore, it is not surprising that Democrat politicians across the country are increasingly using legislation to slow and even stop the growth of charter schools. An obvious quid pro quo.
In Thomas Sowell’s 2020 book, “Charter Schools and Their Enemies”, Sowell’s praise of charter schools center around an analysis of test scores between comparable public and charter schools in New York City. Here, charter schools significantly outperform their counterparts in nearly every area. In fact, these charter schools have not only closed the education gap with their local public school peers but also with their affluent white neighbors. Yet despite this success, Sowell notes the illogic of traditional public schools and their teachers’ unions who incessantly intervene to stop charter schools from further expansion and achievement. The more successful they become; the more roadblocks are placed in their way.
One of the earliest entrants into the charter school arena was the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) which began in Houston in the early 1990s. Despite financial struggles at the onset, statewide testing would later reveal that almost every KIPP student moved up two grade levels in a single year. These results are more often the rule than the exception throughout the United States. If these schools were permitted to reproduce to meet the demand, the education achievement gap would likely continue to decline. So why do Democrats and teachers' unions continue to impede their progress, despite the success? The answer is clear. Follow the money!
Comments