People who follow politics, even casually, learn not to expect high moral standards from politicians. But there are some outrages that show a new low, even for politicians.
Among the consequences of Democrats' recent election victories, especially at the state and local levels, is the election of officials who have publicly announced their opposition to charter schools and their determination to restrict or roll back the growth of those schools.
What have the charter schools done to provoke such opposition?
Often located in low-income, minority neighborhoods, these schools have in many cases produced educational outcomes far better than the traditional public schools in such neighborhoods.
A Success Academy charter elementary school in Harlem had a higher proportion of the children in one of its classes pass the statewide math exam than in any other class at the same grade level, anywhere in the state of New York.
As a result of the charter schools' educational achievements, it is not uncommon for thousands of children to be on waiting lists to get into such schools – in New York City, tens of thousands.
This represents a huge opportunity for many low-income, minority youngsters who have very few other opportunities for a better life. But, to politicians dependent on teachers' unions for money and votes, charter schools are expendable.
In various communities around the country, charter schools are already being prevented from moving into empty school buildings, which would allow them to admit more children from waiting lists.
Denying these children what can be their one chance in life is a new low, even for politicians.
Political rhetoric can camouflage what is happening. But the arguments against charter schools are so phony that anyone with a decent education should be able to see right through them. Unfortunately, the very failure of many traditional public schools to provide a decent education enables their defenders to get away with arguments that could not survive any serious analysis.
Consider the incessantly repeated argument that charter schools are "taking money away from the public schools." Charter schools are themselves public schools, educating children who have a legal right to be educated with taxpayer money set aside for that purpose. When some fraction of children move from traditional public schools to charter schools, why should the same fraction of money not move with them?
What is the money for, if not to educate children? The amount of taxpayer money spent per child in charter schools is seldom, if ever, greater than the amount spent per child in traditional public schools. Often it is less.
Another argument used in attacking charter schools is that, despite particular charter schools with outstanding results, by and large charter school students' results on educational tests are no better than the results in traditional public schools. Even if we accept this claim, it leaves out one crucial fact.
White students and Asian students together constitute a majority of the students in traditional public schools. Black students and Hispanic students together constitute a majority of the students in charter schools.
On virtually all educational tests, black and Hispanic students score significantly lower than white and Asian students. If charter schools as a whole just produce educational results comparable to those in traditional public schools as a whole, that is a big improvement.
If you want to make a comparison of educational results with comparable students, you can look at results among children living in the same neighborhood, at the same grade levels – and with both charter school children and children in a traditional school being educated in the very same building.
Such comparisons in New York City showed, almost every time, a majority of the students in the traditional public school scoring in the bottom half in both math and English, while the percentage of charter school students scoring in the top half was some multiple of the percentage of other students scoring that high.
This is what the teachers' unions and the politicians want to put a stop to. Who will speak up for those children?
Watu wanaofuatilia siasa, hata kwa njia ya kawaida, hujifunza kutotarajia viwango vya juu vya maadili kutoka kwa wanasiasa. Lakini kuna baadhi ya ukatili ambao unaonyesha kiwango kipya cha chini, hata kwa wanasiasa. "Miongoni mwa matokeo ya ushindi wa hivi karibuni wa uchaguzi wa kidemokrasia, hasa katika ngazi ya serikali na ya mitaa, ni uchaguzi wa maafisa ambao wametangaza hadharani upinzani wao kwa shule za mkataba na azimio lao la kuzuia au kurudisha nyuma ukuaji wa shule hizo. """ Shule za mkataba zimefanya nini ili kusababisha upinzani kama huo? Shule hizi, ambazo mara nyingi ziko katika maeneo ya watu wachache wenye mapato ya chini, zimetoa matokeo bora ya elimu kuliko shule za kawaida za umma katika maeneo hayo. Shule ya msingi ya Success Academy katika Harlem ilikuwa na asilimia kubwa ya watoto katika darasa lake kupita mtihani wa hesabu kuliko darasa jingine lolote katika kiwango sawa cha darasa, mahali popote katika jimbo la New York. Kwa sababu ya mafanikio ya elimu ya shule za mkataba, si jambo lisilo la kawaida kwa maelfu ya watoto kuwa kwenye orodha ya kusubiri kuingia katika shule hizo - katika Jiji la New York, makumi ya maelfu. Hii inawakilisha fursa kubwa kwa vijana wengi wa mapato ya chini, wachache ambao wana fursa chache sana za maisha bora. Lakini, kwa wanasiasa wanaotegemea vyama vya walimu kwa ajili ya pesa na kura, shule za mkataba ni za matumizi. Katika jamii mbalimbali nchini, shule za mkataba tayari zinazuiliwa kuhamia majengo ya shule tupu, ambayo ingewawezesha kukubali watoto zaidi kutoka orodha za kusubiri. "Kukataa watoto hawa kile kinachoweza kuwa nafasi yao ya pekee maishani ni kiwango cha chini kabisa, hata kwa wanasiasa.""" Maneno ya kisiasa yanaweza kuficha yale yanayotokea. Lakini hoja dhidi ya shule za mkataba ni bandia sana kwamba mtu yeyote na elimu ya heshima inapaswa kuwa na uwezo wa kuona haki kupitia yao. Kwa bahati mbaya, kushindwa kwa shule nyingi za kawaida za umma kutoa elimu ya heshima huwawezesha watetezi wao kutoroka na hoja ambazo hazingeweza kuishi uchambuzi wowote mzito. Fikiria hoja inayorudiwa-rudiwa daima kwamba shule za kibinafsi "huchukua pesa kutoka kwa shule za umma". Shule za mkataba ni shule za umma, zinazowaelimisha watoto ambao wana haki ya kisheria ya kuelimishwa kwa pesa za walipa kodi zilizowekwa kando kwa kusudi hilo. """Wakati sehemu ya watoto wanahamia kutoka shule za kawaida za umma kwenda shule za mkataba, kwa nini sehemu hiyo ya pesa isiende pamoja nao?" Pesa hizo ni za nini, ikiwa si za kuwaelimisha watoto? Kiasi cha fedha za walipa kodi zinazotumiwa kwa kila mtoto katika shule za mkataba ni mara chache, ikiwa kamwe, kubwa kuliko kiasi kilichotumiwa kwa kila mtoto katika shule za umma za jadi. Mara nyingi ni kidogo. """Hakuna sababu ya kutilia shaka kwamba, licha ya shule za mkataba na matokeo bora, kwa ujumla wanafunzi wa shule ya mkataba matokeo katika vipimo vya elimu si bora kuliko matokeo katika shule za jadi za umma." Hata tukikubali madai hayo, yanakosa jambo moja muhimu. Wanafunzi weupe na wanafunzi wa Asia pamoja hufanyiza idadi kubwa ya wanafunzi katika shule za umma za jadi. Wanafunzi weusi na wanafunzi wa Kihispania pamoja hufanyiza idadi kubwa ya wanafunzi katika shule za mkataba. Katika vipimo vyote vya elimu, wanafunzi weusi na Wahispania hupata alama za chini sana kuliko wanafunzi weupe na Waasia. """Ikiwa shule za mkataba kwa ujumla hutoa matokeo ya elimu yanayoweza kulinganishwa na yale ya shule za umma za jadi kwa ujumla, hiyo ni uboreshaji mkubwa." Kama unataka kufanya kulinganisha ya matokeo ya elimu na wanafunzi kulinganisha, unaweza kuangalia matokeo kati ya watoto wanaoishi katika kitongoji kimoja, katika ngazi moja ya darasa <unk> na na wote watoto wa shule ya mkataba na watoto katika shule ya jadi kuwa elimu katika jengo moja. Kwa mfano, katika New York City, karibu kila mara, idadi kubwa ya wanafunzi katika shule za umma za jadi walipata alama katika nusu ya chini katika hesabu na Kiingereza, wakati asilimia ya wanafunzi wa shule za mkataba walipata alama katika nusu ya juu ilikuwa mara kadhaa ya asilimia ya wanafunzi wengine walipata alama ya juu. Hii ni nini vyama vya walimu na wanasiasa wanataka kuweka mwisho kwa. Ni nani atakayezungumza kwa niaba ya watoto hao?