HT: Binker
Just listen.
<Robinson seems oblivious to the fact that charter schools often provide better educational alternatives for various types of at-risk populations who are poorly served by the traditional public school system.
Another source of irony: she maintains that poor people are being left to attend poor public schools. But wait a minute. I thought the public schools were supposed to be outstanding.
Perhaps her efforts would be better directed at achieving the types of reforms that would truly improve traditional public schools, instead of just throwing money at the problem.
What did you expect? Senior Citizens rarely are informed about new ideas and different ways of doing things. May be she will hear about how Charter Schools are improving the education and lives of children everywhere.
Posted by: Don Moore | February 25, 2011 at 09:41 AM
Don, I am afraid that particular fact is not of much consequence for folks like Gladys Robinson.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 25, 2011 at 12:47 PM
So, let me see if I get this right.
Because there may be a child somewhere that can't get to a Charter School, we should not allow that opportunity for the thousands and thousands of others, including numerous minority children and children from economically challenged backgrounds?
So, would the democrats rather all children continue to fail then allow more children an opportunity to succeed? Gladys Robinson just doesnt get it.
Posted by: JC | February 25, 2011 at 03:19 PM
JC, those are the obvious implications of her position, as you state it.
There is another point regarding the transportation issue. That can be a barrier for middle class families as well as the poor in terms of being able to use charter schools. If both parents work full time, or if there is only one parent in the home, shuttling kids to school becomes much more complicated.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 25, 2011 at 03:54 PM
If the public schools as presently constituted were superior, the charter schools would be begging for students. I suspect that parental attitude has a great deal to do with student success. The genuinely-caring parents seek the best for their children. Parents have no real input nor influence on the public schools and thus turn to other venues for their children. Better parental attitudes are good for the children in public schools also. My children excelled in the public schools. Those schools had significant shortcomings. If better schools had been affordable/accessible/available, my children would have gone there.
Posted by: Ken Hill | February 25, 2011 at 04:29 PM
A nearby example that proves she's full of cxxp:
http://www.kippgaston.org/
Posted by: Jeff | February 25, 2011 at 05:29 PM
Thanks Joe. The biggest barrier in my opinion is parental apathy. I'm pretty sure that malaise crosses many cultural boundaries.
Parents of all economic and social classes will sacrifice for their children if just given the opportunity. To not support them with all available means of educating their children is a travesty.
Posted by: JC | February 25, 2011 at 07:16 PM
Jeff, I agree. There are all kinds of charter school models that serve poor children and minorities.
JC and Ken, I suppose one of Robinson's points is that all publicly funded schools should offer certain ancillary services (food, transportation) to everyone to compensate for the deficiencies some parents might have in providing them. I think this is unrealistic. In the real world, as you suggest, engaged parents who put their kids first from day one are going to lend their kids certain advantages, regardless of the efforts of people like Robinson to pull everyone down to a lower arithmetic mean.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 25, 2011 at 09:22 PM
All one has to do is rent and watch "Waiting for Superman" movie to understand how bad our public schools are. In short, our public schools are about and for the adults, not the students. Charter schools are part of the solution, but longer term, unless we want our future generations to be the least educated in the civilized world, then true reforms need to be made. And, do not let them fool you, it's not more money that is needed, nor fancy $85 million school buildings. This country needs to learn that children can be educated in an old Big Lots building, if they have the right people teaching them and teaching them the right things. Ms. Robinson would benefit from watching that movie. It is the minority children of the country that suffer the most at the hands of the adults in public schools. We are failing the coming generations. Citizens should not ask for reforms, they should demand them. The movie does not get everything just right, but they do nail some very important issues.
Posted by: Stormy | February 26, 2011 at 09:08 PM
Oh, and before some of the usual suspects around here attack the movie, they need to realize that the movie producer is the same person who produced Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth". This is not a liberal/conservative issue. It's about our country's future. Of course, it is the liberals who are running our public schools, so they will have to take most of the blame for what is happening, most especially the teachers' unions. In many cases, not the individual teachers. Most of them are good solid people.
Posted by: Stormy | February 26, 2011 at 09:13 PM
"This is not a liberal/conservative issue....."
It is for our "progressive' element. For them, it's not about the actual results, it's about how a program moves The Agenda forward.
"It's about our country's future."
For "progressives", the future is NOW. Forget about costs, forget about long term impact: Just get it done, and we'll deal with it later.
Nowhere better is that philosophy displayed than in the infamous "We have to pass it to see what's in it" proclamation.
Posted by: bubba | February 27, 2011 at 08:57 AM
Interesting column by guest writer in the Winston-Salem Journal today.
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/opinion/2011/feb/27/parental-involvement-could-reduce-suspensions-ar-816519/
Posted by: Ken Hill | February 27, 2011 at 12:53 PM