2.5 for content; 4 for reading enjoyment
I read this book with a skeptical but open mind, and unfortunately it was good and made some convincing arguments in favor of charter schools. Sigh. Certainty is hard to maintain for long. That said, while I'm slightly less certain we should prohibit charters in our current system, I'm not ultimately in favor of expanding them. How the Other Half Learns is a profile of Bronx 1, an elementary school within the Success Academy charter network, written by a former (short-term) teacher who embedded in the school for a year. As a profile of Success Academy, it's great and, to outside eyes, fairly even-handed. Pondiscio admits some of his qualms about charter schools and the discipline regiments, but quite clearly comes down in favor of Success. This book is NOT a broad analysis of charter schools more generally; one of its biggest flaws is that it makes conclusions as though it is. Sure, Success Academy charters achieve high test scores / academic results, but charters writ large don't necessarily. If you conclude from this book that Success Academy is good, that's valid; if you conclude that charter schools as a whole are good, you did not read with enough critical thought.
The crucial omission from this book is the lack of imaginative systems-thinking. Pondiscio makes the compelling point that upper-income families already operate in a model of school choice: they live in (or can move to) neighborhoods with high-performing public schools and have the option of enrolling their children in various forms of private schools that fit their child's needs, whether it's a college prep academy, distant boarding school, arts academy, religious school, etc. Why, Pondiscio argues, should we prohibit highly motivated low-income families from exerting the same amount of choice? He goes on to add that only low-income black and brown students do we impose the burden of "equality" and "fairness" in not removing the high-achieving students and highly-engaged families from their local (failing) public schools. Expecting low-income families to prioritize the "community" over their child is, I agree, unjust. However. This is where Pondiscio reveals some baffling assumptions and demonstrates a shocking lack of imagination. First of all, he claims that we would never tell a rich family to do the same (not put their kid in private school to keep money in public schools, essentially). While that may be true in our current system, I actually /do/ think wealthy students should attend the same public schools as poor students; in general, I don't think we should have private schools. He also openly asserts that low-income public schools can't become good schools because teachers will never be paid well so intellectually capable people won't become teachers. This is a common fallacy perpetuated by conservatives; I'm not giving it any more attention than to say -- we could pay teachers more if we wanted to invest in education.
That assumption of the irredeemability of public schools is where this pro-charter argument collapses. Wealthy students have choice /because/ their public schools are good quality options. Poor students don't have choice because their public schools are not. Having a lottery that a few students are lucky to get into is fine, but it doesn't solve the root issue. IF AND ONLY IF the public "default" is a good quality school can a charter school purport to offer choice. Otherwise it is simply offering a "lucky" few students a "better" education, at the literal expense of other students. Charter schools may have a place within our education system, just like religious schools might, but they cannot be the only quality option for students. Expanding charters is not a substitute for investing in standard public education.
A couple other points worth mentioning:
- There are no interviews with former students and few with current students, so it's not clear how students feel about their schooling. Success Academy has a ridiculously strict, discipline-focused model: how do students feel about that?
- On the point of rigidity, the structure and discipline in this school sounds like a military prep academy. Only for 5-8 year olds. I didn't love most of it, but was glad to see Success Academy is very supportive of recess.
- There's a whole bit about using test scores as an objective measure of student success, and how that can feel empowering to students that they are being deemed successful by the state, in comparison to their wealthy peers, not merely by their parents or a teacher's grading system. I (controversially) see merit in this argument, though it's not as clear-cut as Pondiscio makes it out to be.
- Ah testing. Not getting into that here. But testing and test prep is /big/ at Success Academy.
- Teachers at Success seem to sincerely believe in the model and want what's best for kids. They are also mostly young white women, telling black families how to structure their life for their child. There are problems there worth exploring more (Pondiscio touches on it, but not in much depth), but worth noting that the families who enroll at Success are buying into the model as well.
We don't live in an ideal world and I'm not sure how practical my argument of "invest in education before turning to charters" is. In the meantime, maybe charter schools do serve a positive purpose and/or aren't exclusively bad. I'm not sure. Students -- even, if not especially, low-income students -- deserve a quality education. I'm not sure that Success Academy is a good educational system, but if it's what parents think is best for their child, I'm in no position to insist otherwise or preclude it as an option. This book complicated my feelings toward charter schools, but didn't change them drastically. It's worth a read for anyone who doesn't like charters and wants to learn more about the benefits of them / why so many people do.
I listened to the audiobook (unusual for me!) and thoroughly enjoyed the experience -- I was excited to return to listening, even preferring it over my podcasts. Overall would recommend.