THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, January 24, 1997 TAG: 9701240021
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A15 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: OPINION
SOURCE: Keith Monroe
LENGTH: 86 lines
It's a shame the NAACP declared war on charter schools Monday in Richmond. The idea is a worthy one. Where they've been tried, they've often been of particular benefit to African-American students.
Charter schools are based on the premise that there's no single right way to educate people. Many means can be adopted that lead to the desired end: well-educated adults. Open classrooms can succeed. So can team teaching. Traditional classroom models are viable, and all-girls schools can offer an excellent education. So can classrooms restricted to African-American males taught by African-American males.
Charter schools are part of the public schools. In most places where they've been tried, a charter is issued to a group of teachers or parents who make a specific, well-thought-out proposal for a school. If enough willing students sign up, the school becomes a reality.
Charter schools can be given their own facility or can become schools within schools. They take advantage of public-school infrastructure and funding. They can be made accountable for meeting systemwide goals. The state can insist that levels of performance be met on pain of losing the charter. But typically the charter school is permitted to design its own program to reach those goals in its own way.
Often the most important thing in a school is not the philosophy behind it or the teaching methods used or the mission pursued. It's the enthusiasm, dedication and esprit de corps of those involved in the enterprise.
That suggests that charter schools work for the same reason that magnet schools, private schools, parochial schools, and math and science schools work. Everybody who shows up wants to be there. The teachers, the students, the parents care.
That's the crux of the complaint by some critics who argue that charter schools will skim the cream off public schools. Those left in regular classrooms will be the unmotivated, the uncaring. Some from the NAACP apparently assume that the lion's share of those would be African-American students.
A sad hypothesis. But even if it's true that a greater percentage of African-American students are at risk, it doesn't follow that charter schools will worsen their plight. Indeed, in several cases, charter schools have been designed with the specific intention of rescuing at-risk African-American students and have shown success.
But the principal objection lodged by NAACP members was that charter schools would reintroduce segregation. ``To me, it's the creation of two school systems - and I have experienced two school systems - one equal and the other not equal,'' John Edward O'Neill Jr. of the Henrico NAACP told Monday's hearing of the House Education Committee.
Memories of the pain and injustice of segregation must be respected, but if schools have equal facilities, equal funding, an equal chance at a charter, are they unequal because they have different philosophies or employ different methods? Is the only way to be equal to be identical? Or isn't it possible to have equality and diversity at the same time?
That's what proponents of charter schools argue. ``We're talking about letting the people of Virginia practice Jeffersonian democracy,'' said James Murphy of the Virginia Congress of Parents and Teachers, which favors the concept. ``It's letting people decide how they want to educate their children.''
Fans of charter schools also make a free-market argument in their favor. They contend that public schools are a monopoly with no incentive to change or improve. Charter schools, it's said, would introduce competition and spur improvements as hidebound, underperforming schools lost students to more appealing charter school. The magic of the market would elevate everybody's level of performance.
Both sides tend to overstate. Charter schools aren't a panacea. But neither are they a plot to resegregate. Indeed, if the public schools have failed anyone, it's disadvantaged African Americans. And if charter schools hold promise it is equally - perhaps more that equally - available to them.
If well-conceived and staffed, charter schools can be exciting places to learn. They can try new ways of teaching and attract students who share their goals. But the magic of the market entails a certain Darwinian survival of the fittest, as well. Some schools that compete will fail. It would be wrong to make students the victims of experiment run riot. Oversight is needed. And performance goals must be met, no matter the teaching method used. In the words of one famous educational reformer, freedom, not license, is required.
That said, it would be unfortunate if the vote by the committee should go against charter schools. They aren't the only way to improve public schools, but they're one way and ought to be tried. This shouldn't be regarded as a vote against minorities, but in favor of educational diversity. The committee should vote for hope, not fear. Now that race has been introduced into the equation, it will take courage to do so. MEMO: Mr. Monroe is editor of the editorial page of The Virginian-Pilot.