Doing what we do best...

The many problems facing American society and the US education system can never be simplified to black and white. Unfortunately, I feel as though this post might be a little too cut and dry for some.

Do what you do best.

A very simple statement.

I am prompted to say this by many of the people I have met and I am also guilty of breaking this statement.

I believe that too often we step up to do something that we know we are not good at. Perhaps it is because at one time we were good at it or maybe someone (who wasn't really qualified to say it) told you were good at it.

If we go through with our actions we let others down because there was someone better who could have done the job.

We all can make contributions to others, both big and small, but those contributions should be with our strengths and of a quality that is unparalleled. If we can start to shift our minds to this way of thinking it would eventually lead to a lot more qualified people in professions that they can be effective in.

My paper last night...and Obama this morning

Check out this clip of Obama presenting a "plan" for fixing education.

Now check out my selections from the paper I wrote for Dr. Jim Langholz today. (Below)

It is unclear whether charter schools offer real, long-term solutions to fixing public education in America, or whether the Obama administration should be relying on them as a means of turning around the nation's poor academic record. Studies of charter schools have been mixed; some researchers give higher marks to charters, others to public schools. One of the most recent and most comprehensive longitudinal studies, released by Stanford University in June 2009, found that charter schools were uneven. More than a third perform worse than nearby public schools, and about half do about as well as public schools, the study found. Only 17% provide students with a "superior educational opportunity."

At least theoretically, charter schools have a built-in advantage. In California, most charter schools fill their seats through lotteries, to give all students an equal chance and to prevent the schools from enrolling only the most promising students. It's a fair system, but it skews enrollment because the lotteries attract motivated, involved families. In addition, charter schools can require extra responsibilities for students and parents, such as volunteering time on campus, and can close enrollment when they are full. They also have more authority to expel students who do not meet their standards for behavior. Families that are unable or unwilling to invest that much in their children's education will end up at public schools, which have to accept all students within their boundaries.

At the same time, now that the number of charter schools is reaching critical mass, they are having a disproportionate negative impact on funding for public schools. Through the lottery system, charters enroll students from various schools and grades. Most of the state funding for those students follows them to their new schools. The public schools they leave receive less money, but their operating costs don't necessarily go down. Giving one student the opportunity to attend a charter should not mean leaving another with fewer resources.

Charter schools have played an important role in reform, and the best of them have transformed the educational futures of their students. But so far they have not proved a cure-all for what ails public education.