The sharks were circling poor Dr. Aaron Woody during a relentless attack on his opinion concerning the value of the charter school movement as depicted in the documentary WAITING FOR SUPERMAN. As Dr. Woody attempted to defend the honor of the public school system he began to wither under the attack of a parent who desperately wanted to believe that moving her child to a "different" school meant moving her child to a "better" school. But after the rhetoric died down there were only facts left to digest. To the observer who will actually sift through the talk it was clear that greener grass is still only a hope and not a certainty.
The concerned parent used no-win language to question whether or not Dr. Woody wanted what was “best” for his child. The parent asked whether or not a family had the right to seek the best school possible for their students. Certainly the language was a highly effective tactic that does not allow for an answer that will do anything but support the opposition argument. “Yes” I want better for my child and “of course” I would like to choose a great school. But the fundamental question is whether or nor the charter school is the solution. The decision, to abandon the system of education that is typically provided by the state for an alternative education also provided by the state, seems to be a less than logical move. There have been alternative settings provided for students who could not succeed in the typical school setting, but these placements were made based on the particular needs of a student. The alternative setting was designed to meet the needs of the students. The charter school lottery system depicted in the documentary WAITING FOR SUPERMAN is not meeting a particular need of a child but is instead playing a Vegas style game of chance with student placement. So the answer is “Yes I want the best school for my child. Is it the charter school?” The follow-up answer is probably “no”.
The charter school proposes that there is a better way to teach your child. If that is the case and the charter school is funded by the state, then why not use the charter school not the standard for all schools. Rather than have the school system use a lottery to see who goes to the “better” school put the state funding into schools and best practices trainging for the existing schools. The legal expert that was invited to this panel debate demonstrated that most charter schools did not perform equal to the schools that saw to upgrade. The expert further showed that charter schools did not have a staff equal in certification to the public schools. A less desirable staff and a lesser showing on state mandated testing cannot be used a proof of a better way to deliver instruction.
The grass is not greener. That is merely an optical illusion designed to illicit a political response that will lead to school choice. The time and energy spent on charter school can be better spent making our existing schools great once more. Rather than develop an alternative than is limited to the few, commit resources to the schools that exist. Believe in the change that will affect all students and not those who are merely lucky.