We take pleasure in answering at once and thus prominently the communication below, expressing at the same time our great gratification that its faithful author is numbered among the friends of the Democrat-Gazette. (Where have we heard that beginning before?)
Oh well, nobody expects a hand-written note in the real mail anymore. Some of us have begun to expect all correspondence to come via electricity. More's the pity. But that's a rant for another day, or another paragraph. Our correspondent had a question, and we sometimes can provide answers.
The email address suggests he lives in Fort Smith:
"After reading another editorial gushing over charter schools, and as usual bashing teachers, could the editors please answer one simple question: If charter schools, which are public schools, are so great, then why don't ALL public schools have those bothersome, burdensome, irksome regulations removed? Why just charter schools? And why do the editors NEVER mention parental involvement, except to say the parents should be able to move their kids? Just a couple of questions."
As to the first question, we are happy and grateful to be able to answer: We don't know. (Twain, M.)
Why don't capital-letters ALL public schools get rid of bothersome, burdensome regulations? Maybe because they cannot. Just as many precincts in Washington, D.C., think government knows best, so do a lot of central offices. Heaven forbid a school board member walk on campus and see a belly button. A new dress code, and new memo, would be out by morning.
State lawmakers often get involved, too, by writing laws that affect what can be taught, or not taught, in the classroom.
Then again, since our correspondent mentioned teachers, unions have a big impact on regulations as well. Because of union-demanded regulations, principals rarely have the ability to hire and fire teachers for simply doing a poor job in the classroom. Not doing your job might get you canned in any other profession, but it's a rare excuse for dismissal in public education.
Then there are the aforementioned feds, who tie enough strings to their money that teachers can barely move. We can't wait for the day when somebody running for school board sits in an editorial conference and says her first priority, if elected, would be to clear out all the rules that have been put on teachers and principals over the last 50 years, so they can find the best ways to teach.
Which is why charters are so attractive. These rules and regulations are minimal.
As for our friend's second question, why do we NEVER mention parental involvement: Please, sir, accept our apologies. We never meant to diminish that factor in education. It may be the second-most important element in education, save the talent of the classroom teacher.
Private schools may look attractive compared to public schools because they aren't burdened by these rules and regs. But there's no reason public schools can't compete with private ones, and teachers and principals given a smart teaching environment to work with--one to relish, even. Quality education is nothing to fear. On the contrary, it's something to seek.
Editorial on 05/17/2019