Sunday, January 20, 2008
Charter School Success: The Marine Corps of Public Education
Edukshun piece by
Lee Culpepper
The mystique and fighting prowess of the Marine Corps entice motivated recruits. Its reputation also strikes fear in the hearts of its enemies. The Corps is something that nearly everyone admires, but only a few have the courage and loyalty necessary to make the commitment.
The Corps does not make excuses; it finds ways to accomplish the mission—with or without the assets others require. Marines pride themselves on their ability to “accomplish more with less.”
Charter schools share a similar philosophy. They, too, “accomplish more with less.” They entice committed families and teachers searching for something better in education. Charter schools also strike fear in the hearts of teacher unions and their politicians. Overall, charter schools have proved they can produce at least as good—but typically better—results than district schools.
However, charter schools receive less government money; they use fewer “certified teachers”; and they endure politically correct deficiencies – like not having enough racial diversity. They don’t get a dime of taxpayer money to build classrooms either. They are on their own to pay for facilities, whether they choose to lease, build, or restore property. It’s their problem.
Charters are public schools, though. They operate with more flexibility and fewer regulations than district schools. In exchange, charters promise better accountability to parents for results and better accountability to states for spending. However, their opponents make every imaginable effort to cripple charters with the same regulations and central control that have made public schools the disasters they are.
Granted, some charter schools emphasize the same politically correct fads that traditional schools do, such as self-esteem, diversity, or outcome-based instruction (which is simply a creative way to say, “low standards”). Some have experienced accounting scandals that also occasionally embarrass traditional schools. These charters might be akin to the Marines who humiliate the Corps by failing to live up to its high standards (Congressman Frank Murtha, for example).
Nevertheless, charter schools give parents an option that teacher unions oppose. Choice equals competition, and people generally choose the product that works best. Public schools have not worked for a long time because monopolies breed complacency. Charter schools open the door to competition. Teacher unions relentlessly use lawyers and politicians to slam that door shut. Unions exert tremendous effort to impose as many regulations and as much central control on charters as possible. The more regulations and worthless criteria teacher unions can impose on charters effectively undermine the edge charter schools have – decentralized control.
The Marine Corps has a similar problem. Being the smallest branch of the military, it has long battled against being absorbed into another service. The Corps’ success and mystique are often envied and occasionally despised. For instance, during the 1983 assault on Grenada, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John W. Vessey Jr., declared, “We have two companies of Marines running rampant all over the northern half of this island, and three Army regiments pinned down in the southwestern corner, doing nothing. What the hell is going on?”
Marines advocate decentralized command more than any other service. Its philosophy pushes important-decision making down the chain to the lowest-ranking Marines on the front lines. Such individual responsibility forces Marines to be incredibly knowledgeable and competent. Every Marine is held accountable for his own actions and decisions—but he is also responsible for the actions of his subordinates.
Charters operate similarly, as they function independently from district schools. They receive less financial support than bigger public schools, but they have greater flexibility to hire their own teachers, to choose their own curriculums, and to make their own decisions in other areas. For example, if a charter principal wants a certain number of advanced placement courses, he creates them.
Charter schools simply have a more efficient approach than their competition. Charters streamline administration and eliminate bureaucratic red tape. They place greater responsibility directly on teachers. For instance, if charter-school teachers are not effective, they cannot hide behind tenure like other public school teachers can. Charter teachers have one-year contracts. Staying employed is their incentive to teach and produce results. On the other hand, once traditional-school teachers reach tenure, teacher-union jihad ensues if principals dare attempt to fire ineffective teachers.
Teacher unions insist “certified teachers” are essential in classrooms. But charters have some flexibility here. Consequently, charters (having fewer “certified teachers”) have matched or surpassed their competition’s results. Charter teachers must meet the “highly qualified-teacher” definition, but charters can save some teachers from the legalized shakedown that teacher-credentialing programs are. Plenty of evidence supports that teaching credentials have no bearing on teacher effectiveness. But competent teachers must endure the politically correct indoctrination and state-supported extortion of such programs before teaching in district schools.
Charters have also been accused of draining funds from district schools. This simply is not true. District schools receive money only for the students who are enrolled. In other words, when families opt for charter schools, they actually help traditional schools. Departures reduce class sizes and teacher workload.
Charter schools also get attacked often for lacking racial diversity. However, no practical evidence exists that racial diversity improves learning. In fact, research by Harvard’s Ronald G. Fryer suggests the opposite. In “Acting White,” Fryer reveals that black students who do well academically in racially integrated schools face banishment and even violence from other blacks. He writes, “It’s less of a problem in the private sector and in predominantly black public schools. He also asserts his “findings with respect to Hispanics are even more discouraging.” Furthermore, most minority parents want the ability to choose their children’s schools. But the politicians who boast looking out for minorities are the same ones denying them that right.
While no one will ever mistake charter schools for the Marine Corps, their ability to “accomplish more with less” deserves much greater recognition. Traditional schools should try replicating the philosophy instead of plaguing charters with more regulations. The Marine Corps made the ability to improvise, to adapt, and to overcome famous. It’s a trait every educator should desire.
Lee Culpepper
http://leeculpepper.com/
HowardWasRight 
more...
more... 
