Difficult to teach

Hurricane Katrina gave New Orleans a chance to replace its not very good public school system with charter schools. Andrea Gabor in Newsweek has a report on how well that is working. A big problem is that the state method of evaluating what is an effective school and what isn't is based on the percentage of kids that head to college. Should all kids aim for college? What about the ones who would be so burdened by debt and stuck in low-paying jobs that college wouldn't be an economic gain? What about the ones who aren't college material or are aiming for careers, such as carpenter, where college isn't a help? The state emphasis on college admissions means high schools geared towards these other students are deemed to be failing, even if the students learn a respectable trade.

Another big problem is that charters can expel the "difficult to teach." And no one keeps track of whether another school, charter or not, takes them in.

A third problem is most of these charter schools are regimented. Teachers are burnt out in just a couple years. Students have no fun. They have no opportunity to explore what their future might be like. They are treated to one-size-fits-all. Is that what we really want?

Christopher Dickey, also in Newsweek has found another education issue. Don Moore, associate professor of University of California, Berkeley, says that elite colleges and universities are much more lenient in their grading. Back in 2001, 90% of Harvard students graduated with honors. What this means is rich kids get higher GPAs than poor kids. That gives the rich a boost when applying for elite jobs, and widens inequality.