We
didn't have charter schools when I was growing up. Do I sound old?
Well, listening to the new system, which places charter schools inside
of already existing public schools, makes me feel like I missed
something over the past several years.
Thanks to former mayor Mike Bloomberg, and Eva Moskowitz, dozens of
charter schools – some newly created – with names like “Excellence is
Excellent,” “It's A Great Academic World We Live In” and “The Most
Collegiate Place Your Kids Need To Be Academy,” were smushed into
pre-existing public schools.
However,
they don't claim that there's any “smushing” going on. Instead,
officials with the Department of Education (DOE) have this formula which
identifies public school buildings that are practically empty (way to
look at the glass half full DOE!). Okay – they call these schools
“underutilized.” For some reason, more and more city schools have “under
enrollment” percentages. So, what the DOE is saying is that because
parents aren't sending their kids to their local, zoned schools, or the
population of children attending local schools is diminishing, there's
plenty of room in these buildings for charters to operate and expand.
One of the inaccurate assumptions is that charter schools take away
money from the existing schools.
While charter schools, which are
privately funded, operate like regular public schools, most people in
our community are unhappy about students and administration sharing
space with an incoming entity. Locals, including educators and
politicians, claim that charter schools come into our buildings and
subsequently cut down resources available to students who already attend
the school. Lunchtime, library time, recreational time – it's all gotta
be shared between two schools.
The only discouraging item I've read in fine print claimed that most
charter schools would enroll an increasing amount of students each year.
The DOE probably hopes that the existing public schools – even the ones
that are successful and outstanding – will eventually be phased out
altogether (call me a conspirist!). The motive? Charter school teachers
aren't unionized and their students perform better than...regular
students! Do students know they’re being academically segregated in one
building?
I don't understand the need for more charter schools to begin with. When I attended public schools in Canarsie,
classes were overcrowded and each class had over 30 students. There was
no problem with enrollment – some classes received new students in the
middle of the year! If charters came in when I was younger, I would have
wondered who were all these kids from the “other” school and are they
getting a better or different education than I am?
On the other hand, I haven't been to a civic or school board meeting
where anyone's complained about charter schools. No one has argued that
the students don't get along – or that space sharing is a problem.
Our hopes were that once Mayor Bill de Blasio came into office, there
would be no more space sharing in our schools – regardless of whether
it's impacted the educational system positively or negatively. When de
Blasio recently cut the number of planned co-locations, and the issue of
charging charters rent for the space they use in public schools was
raised, it seemed like a victory. Then, the Daily News reported last week that one charter school – Success Academy in Harlem
– will not be operating, which left parents wondering where they'd send
their kids. Where? It seems like their educationally discriminating
regular public schools, which need more local kids to stay in existence!
The academic revolving door isn't fun for anyone – especially our
children who are being classified by which school, within a school
building, they're attending. Funding, space utilization, quality of
education and the power of politics – isn’t it fun to be a child
attending public school?
No comments:
Post a Comment