- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The most powerful innovation in K-12 education in the US is now 25 years old. One thing hasn't changed: teachers' unions still prioritize their interests over the children.
A Quiet Revolution
Charter schooling's first 25 years
Oct 24, 2016
By ANDY SMARICK
[FONT=Helvetica !important]For 100 years, from the late 1800s to the late 1900s, nearly every American K-12 public school shared several defining features. Whether you found it in a rural town, a major city, or a sprawling suburb, you could say for certain a number of things about that school. It was run by a government body (the school district) that had been given exclusive control over public education in that area. Students were assigned to the school based on where they lived. A public governing board or official—typically elected—made the most important decisions about the school's operations.
[/FONT]Over the last quarter-century, these rules and other chapters of the public-education canon have been rewritten. Because of a simple but profound policy innovation, our understanding of how public schools can be operated, enrolled in, and overseen has been transformed. Even more remarkable is how these changes took place. They weren't the result of bossy federal mandates or sweeping court decisions. Their progress wasn't directed by distant administrators or fueled by a tangle of government agencies. They didn't occur suddenly or all at once.Behind this incremental revolution—the charter school movement, which celebrates its 25th anniversary this fall—was a collection of principles that will be familiar to conservatives especially. Charter schools explicitly shifted power from the government to individuals and neighborhood organizations. They prioritized local needs and local decision-making. They trusted families and practitioners to have better information and more wisdom than technocrats. They made room for entrepreneurialism and innovation. They cultivated a diversity of school options to suit a pluralistic society. They focused governments on outcomes instead of inputs. They emerged from piecemeal reform of a longstanding institution, which proceeded slowly from modest community initiatives, not all at once in accordance with grand plans devised by experts. . . .
Read more
A Quiet Revolution
Charter schooling's first 25 years
Oct 24, 2016
By ANDY SMARICK
[FONT=Helvetica !important]For 100 years, from the late 1800s to the late 1900s, nearly every American K-12 public school shared several defining features. Whether you found it in a rural town, a major city, or a sprawling suburb, you could say for certain a number of things about that school. It was run by a government body (the school district) that had been given exclusive control over public education in that area. Students were assigned to the school based on where they lived. A public governing board or official—typically elected—made the most important decisions about the school's operations.
[/FONT]Over the last quarter-century, these rules and other chapters of the public-education canon have been rewritten. Because of a simple but profound policy innovation, our understanding of how public schools can be operated, enrolled in, and overseen has been transformed. Even more remarkable is how these changes took place. They weren't the result of bossy federal mandates or sweeping court decisions. Their progress wasn't directed by distant administrators or fueled by a tangle of government agencies. They didn't occur suddenly or all at once.Behind this incremental revolution—the charter school movement, which celebrates its 25th anniversary this fall—was a collection of principles that will be familiar to conservatives especially. Charter schools explicitly shifted power from the government to individuals and neighborhood organizations. They prioritized local needs and local decision-making. They trusted families and practitioners to have better information and more wisdom than technocrats. They made room for entrepreneurialism and innovation. They cultivated a diversity of school options to suit a pluralistic society. They focused governments on outcomes instead of inputs. They emerged from piecemeal reform of a longstanding institution, which proceeded slowly from modest community initiatives, not all at once in accordance with grand plans devised by experts. . . .
Read more
