Great distinction! So when the charter school fails & folds, what happens to the children who attend that school? Seems that many of these charters are plagued with similar problems as the SLPS, or worse when it comes to educating children. What CHOICE then do the children have when the charters fail? Seems they would go back to the SLPS. Right? Why not just focus on fixing the problems with the SLPS? If the Mayor has all the answers and knows the best practices of running schools, why is he not offering leadership and problem solving to the SLPS? Why are these local universities who sponsor these charter schools not offering to help solve the problems in the city schools? Hmmm…..sounds like business has overtaken education.

The issue is not how do we make charter schools better but how do we provide a quality eduaction for our students. Allowing a school to fail is not an option. It displaces students and disrupts their education not to mention what happens to the school they are forced to transfer to.
Lack of continuity and stability were just two of the many criticisms leveled against the SLPS. How does enabling a school to fail and close address these issues? Why is it that difficult for our current leadership (from the govenor on down) to assert their authority and implement a program that provides a quality education for all children, not just those fortunate enough to have been born in an affluent zip code?
Quality can be expensive and does require an effort but do our children deserve any less? Mabe we should remember that the children are not the ones creating this mess. They are simply the victims of a lack of leadership and commitment.

Add to the list of failed charter schools Thurgood Marshall and Youthbuild, an earlier experiment in rememdial education for drop-outs. Indeed, these cases emphasize that many of the “successful”–in the sense that they still exist, not that they have improved test scores–charter schools benefit from close connections from national school operators like Edison or local educational activitists, who can bring the significant capital that is required to open and maintain a school. The point made above is the correct one; the point is successful urban schools, whether they are standard public, charter public, or private. Sadly, working for an urban educational system that is adequate for all students means working through the complexity of an urban educational system, not breezily assuming it is going to wither away on the vine, as this editorial seems to.

The point is: Like it or not charters are on line with more on the way. For now, they are where the action is.

So, why wouldn’t St. Louis Public Schools explore the possibility of becoming a player in the movement and at see what an RFP yields?

That doesn’t “breezily assume” urban education systems will wither away. It wonders whether urban education systems are willing to consider alternative forms as a means of lifting themselves up.

Mr. Roth,

Just because the Post prefers to shape the news by such statements as “charters are where the action is” doesn’t mean that is really what is going to happen. SLPS does in fact already have its own charter school, this is nothing new for the district.

“They could pick and choose teachers, staff AND STUDENTS

sorry, got cut off.

“They could pick teachers, staff AND STUDENTS willing to abide by the same rules.” Public schools do not have the luxury of choosing their students. They exist to serve every child in their boundaries, whether that child drove there in his own BMW he got for his 16th birthday or whether he walked a mile through a dark, gang-infested neighborhood on a cold winter morning having had no breakfast just to get there. To suggest that there should a charter school system developed for “the chosen” children and a decimated shell of system left with no resources for the rest is unconscionable.

Katherine,

Thanks for your comments, but you are mistaken if you read what I wrote to say “there should a charter school system developed for ‘the chosen’ children and a decimated shell of system left with no resources for the rest.”

I don’t know where you get that.

To say that “charters are where the action is” is not an attempt to shape the news; it’s an attempt to report it.

The combined charter student population is equal to about one-fourth of all the children in traditional public schools. Add to that the emerging Washington University connection with KIPP and you have action.

Today’s editorial suggests that the SAB should explore sponsoring its own charters as a way of moving the district ahead, that it put out an RFP carefully tailored to the needs of children in the district and see what comes back.

What’s wrong with that?

Mr Roth,
First, I think the district is restricted to a percentage by law of how many charter schools it may have. Second, your idea doesn’t serve to change the situation that currently exists for the rest of the students. Sort of like “cutting off the nose to spite the face” As a society, we must be in public education for the benefit of the whole, not the few.

Please call me Eddie.

I still don’t understand:

How is that just the act of soliciting proposals for forming schools — schools that would sponsored by the district and that focus on at-risk students, vocational and career preparation, and populations not well served by the status quo — undermines the goal of “public education for the benefit of the whole, not the few?”

Eddie,
We currently have schools that focus in all those areas. Most of them are Magnet Schools and some of them are struggling as well. Entertaining the idea of forming additional schools takes efforts away from the existing schools that need to be focused on that serve current students. I assume it takes a great amount of effort, creativity, planning, organization, securing of funds etc to just get to the point of proposal. I believe that is the type of effort that we should be using to fix the problems in the existing schools. What I don’t understand is why this community wants to turn their backs on the schools we have with problems that are currently trying to educate students to focus their efforts somewhere else? I prefer that our efforts as a community are focused on preserving the “whole” that exists to serve all children. I believe if we are as focused, passionate and creative about how we try to educate all children as we have become regarding charter schools or alternative schools, we can be successful moving this school district forward one school at a time. Besides, we simply don’t have the funds to add a school at this point.