Why School Choice Does Not Lead to Fair Competition Or Innovation In Public Schools

336

Note: Twitter won't let you Tweet my blog url. Please use this shortened url instead: http://tinyurl.com/tworulesforcharterschools

With the confirmation of Betsy Devos, people are trying to understand why there is such an outcry against choice. Isn’t competition a good thing? Reporter John Stossel said in a discussion on my Facebook page, “If the parents get to choose, and the money follows the kids, good schools will grow and bad ones will get better.”

But that can’t happen and the game isn’t fair.

Here’s why.

Once No Child Left Behind was enacted, public schools were forced to leave student-centered ideals behind and focus on ensuring children passed one-size-fits-all standardized tests that rewarded memorization and regurgitation. Authentic learning opportunities went to the wayside in public schools. Models like Big Picture Learning and Schoolwide Enrichment that honored students talents, passions, interests and abilities could not survive in such a climate. As a result, only private schools and charter schools are able to embrace models such as the Montessori Method,  Agile Learning, Reggio Emilia, and Democratic Schools that allow for the freedoms that can be realized when operating outside the restrictions and regulations imposed upon government schools.  

While some of these models were embraced in the past in public education, they can not survive the current climate of standardization and regulation. As a result the competition is rigged. Charters and privates can provide child-centered, innovative learning environments that the government prevents public schools from embracing.

Does it have to be that way?

I want more » 336

Share :

Tweet

✚

Related Post