The Pros and Cons of Charter Schools

Most large family gatherings have the normal family disagreements. But if you ever want to ruin a “good argument” during the holidays, just mention charter schools around the educators in my family. At the dinner table sit female educators who are teachers, principals, and college professors who will send the turkey and dressing running for cover at the very mention of charter schools. The topic of charter schools is hotly disputed between my mother and my aunts who believe “the devil is in the details”. Asking these fervently experienced Titans of education to explain why they love or loath the idea of charter schools minus the passion has left me, occasionally, looking for the turkey and dressing’s hiding place.

As Governor Haslam has lifted the ban on the number of charter schools statewide, we will see more charter schools forming. The reasons for allowing more charter schools are as numerous as the stars above but it is important to review some of the pros and cons of charter schools. *

Pro: Charter schools provide families with public school choice options. Parents will have the ability to choose the school best suited for their child.
Con: Charter schools, due to their small size and limited numbers, will provide only some families with public school choice options, thereby raising issues of fairness and equity.

Pro: Charter schools can act as laboratories of reform, identifying successful practices that could be replicated by traditional district public schools. Also, by waiving regulations in a limited number of schools, the most prohibitive policies can be identified and eliminated for all schools.
Con: Successful reform models such as New American Schools and Core Knowledge have already been identified. Why not attempt these reforms in existing schools? If rules and regulations are so burdensome, they should be waived for all public schools.

Pro: Through school choice, competition within the public school system is created, pressuring school districts to reassess their educational practices.
Con: Charter schools have an unfair advantage when competing against district public schools since they tend to be smaller and free from regulations. Charter schools have access to federal funds and other revenue sources.

Pro: Charters will lead to overall systemic reform through the pressure and competition of the choice mechanism.
Con: Charters are too limited in scope to adequately pressure the entire public school system.

Pro: Charter schools, unlike traditional public schools are held accountable. If charters do not perform, they are not renewed.
Con: Charters are not accountable as they are freed from rules and regulations intended to ensure quality in public education.

The pros and cons listed above should be studied and weighed very seriously. What works in one community may not work in another. What I have founded more fascinating than debating the pros and cons of charter schools is what is often overlooked; the role state legislators play with the expansion of charter schools. The majority of charter school arguments take place in legislative sessions (not at family dinner tables) since the programs that enable choice in public education are legislative enactments. Who you vote for (or don’t) determines what educational programs are received in your community. Too often, the communities that need the most educational options have residents who are least likely to vote.

One can have the best ideas and plans on how to educate your communities but how public dollars are allocated is determined by an elected official not the school and the families that make up that school. In order to help change the crisis in education, families must become more informed of educational choices and involved in school district issues. Parents must also be engaged politically by voting for individuals that have their family’s best interest at stake.

A child’s education, whether charter or public, is dependent on the family foundation, the skills of the teachers he or she encounters daily, the leadership of the principals, the effectiveness of the school district, community engagement and who write the laws in state legislatures. In order to have more positive outcomes surrounding the education of children, parents must do their homework on issues and make sure they are investing in their child’s future by voting in every election.

In 2012, the survival of public education will be determined by who is elected to the highest office in the land. But locals must give as much priority to state and county elections. They are equally important especially when it comes to education.

*Data compiled from NCSL Issues and Research.

A Honest Dialouge About "Food Desert" Legislation

In February and March, several organizations that I am a member of had legislative days at the state and national levels. For many years, I have participated with the pest control industry and women business owners’ legislative days in DC. Coincidental, both are usually held within days of each other every year. Because of my hectic schedule last month, I did not attend legislative events in DC that pertained to issues that regulate how I do business as a pest management profession or a woman owned company.

But I did visit our state legislators to address issues that I felt strongly about professionally and morally. The voter registration ID bill reminds me of Jim Crow's Old South and legislating when a mother can breastfeed her baby sounded too much like “big government” overstepping. Because I blog about issues on the hill often, I was right at home with our state legislators, even this new crop of politicians. Many issues cherished by my family because of my grandfather’s contributions on civil rights battlefield have been stem rolled by this group. I have shared my thoughts with many bill authors by phone, email and in person. Bills regarding voting issues have wiped out years of voter rights activism.

Although not as important as bills pertaining to voting issues, the Food Desert legislation bill, left me with mixed feelings. It is a good idea but I do believe more education around food deserts is essential as well as the community of color needs to be informed of the role it plays it getting this type of legislation momentum.

The food desert legislation has been a hot topic since our First Lady, Michelle Obama, kicked off her initiatives to tackle obesity in children. Food deserts are neighborhoods and areas of the country without supermarkets that sell fresh fruits and vegetables. Mrs. Obama, like all first ladies before her, picked a cause that is close to her heart. Mrs. Obama is raising awareness about childhood obesity and using her platform as First Lady of the United States to influence others to become involved to make a difference in stamping out childhood illness related to obesity.

The initiative named “Let’s Move” is celebrating its first year of raising our country’s consciences about what our children eat and how it impacts their health long term. Mrs. Obama kicked off her Let’s Move program by inviting children to the White House to plant a vegetable garden and to learn healthy eating habits from the White House Chef.

Mrs. Obama's program has stated statics that show one out of three children is overweight or obese. In African American and Hispanic homes, the number jumps to 40% of the children are dealing with obesity issues. As children have gotten bigger, the number of children diagnosed with adolescent diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, asthma, and even cancer has increase significantly as well. Disease and chronic illnesses that are usually found in adults, thirty years ago, are plaguing kindergarten age children.

Thirty years ago, most school age children walked to school and played outside almost daily. Today, recess programs have been cut from most school budgets and children spends hours indoors playing video games or watching TV. With less physical activities and more children eating processed foods, Mrs. Obama addresses obesity and unhealthy eating habits among children by cheering for more outdoor play and exercise and stressing to families and schools to cook more nutritional meals.

Mrs. Obama have also encouraged more fresh vegetables be made available in Metropolitan inner cities and rural communities that have no grocery stores. Mrs. Obama drew the ire of conservatives when she spoke about lunch cafeterias serving more salads and baked foods. This was touted as being part of the President’s socialist intent to introduce the government into every aspect of our lives by suggesting healthy eating to school age children.

When Mrs. Obama spoke at an event in Philadelphia last year, many took note of her suggestion on how to deal with food desert areas of the country. She offered this solution:

"Let's move to ensure that all families have access to healthy, affordable foods in their community," she said. "(W)e've set an ambitious goal here: to eliminate food deserts in America within seven years.

"To do that," she said, "we're creating a Healthy Food Financing Initiative that's going to invest $400 million a year -- and leverage hundreds of millions more from the private sector -- to bring grocery stores to undeserved areas and help places like convenience stores carry healthier options."

Mrs. Obama offered a financial suggestion to help deal with an issue that is layered with many systemic problems. A broad idea that must start on the local level loses traction when we look at the issues that must be apportioned by state and local governing bodies and the mindset of neighborhoods and the communities that it will affect. Stating that we need a grocer to service a neighborhood so that the community can buy fresh vegetables and fruits sounds like a simplistic solution. But often, we overlook at the reasons why a neighborhood is without a grocer even though you have a buying customer base. I compare these scenarios to putting a cart without wheels before the horse, it is not moving…period.

If the community of color is honest, most minority neighborhoods without grocery stores are riddled with crime. This is the case even here in Nashville. At one point, almost every area of town had a grocery store. When busing became law, the suburbs started to flourish leaving inner city areas without businesses. As the businesses grew in surrounding areas like Brentwood, Nashville neighborhoods became more and more crime infested. Stores were less and less willing to remain open in those areas. Business owners moved out. It is widely known high crime rates coincide with the lack of unemployment. High unemployment is usually encrusted with high school dropout rates. Trying to figure it out is like trying to decide if the chicken or the egg came first. Crime, lack of education, and no jobs spin off situations like food deserts.

According to www.letsmove.gov, when low income areas are food deserts, families tend to spend more money on calorie laden fast foods or convenient foods found at corner markets that do not offer healthy choices. As more and more politicians are picking up the Let’s Move mantra, they must understand that addressing how to make a food desert area more attractive to business owners should be part of the dialogue as healthy lifestyles are discussed. They must be worked on simultaneously. That shows potential stake holders that every angel of the problem is being thoroughly addressed and not just throwing more money into another government program that will not transform a community, a corner or even a child.

Trying to entice large conglomerates to invest millions into opening a neighborhood grocer takes years of planning. Marketing must be done to attract companies and communities must prepare an educated workforce for employment. This is as critical as getting the children to eat healthy foods to prevent childhood obesity. At www.letsmove.org, seven years is cited as a time frame to change an area. Putting all the pieces together takes a few years. That part is rarely cited by the critics of Mrs. Obama or food desert advocates.

I commend the First Lady for making eating healthy as a goal not only for children but for families in general. Healthy families lead more productive lives. Mrs. Obama is a role model for many women across the nation. Personally, she has encouraged me with her dedication to exercise and healthy eating. As many organizations begin taking up Mrs. Obama’s cause to fight childhood obesity issues, the groups need to be engaged in those community. Being known for meeting the needs of a community is vital to addressing systemic issues in a community. As more people become aware of food desert legislation, let’s move with determined steps to break the cycle of crime, unemployment, and lack of education in our communities as we promote healthy lifestyles. Grassroots activists can transform lives and create changes that can be seen thirty years from now. One cannot be done without the other. For more info go to www.letsmove.org www.letsmove.gov
Article first published as Honest Dialogue about "Food Desert" Legislation on Blogcritics.