This is the first in a series on the growing Charter School movement in American education. This series is being cross-posted at Sweat and Technique.

Charter School as defined by Wikipedia:

Charter schools are elementary or secondary schools in the United States that receive public money but have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school’s charter.

While charter schools provide an alternative to other public schools, they are part of the public education system and are not allowed to charge tuition. Where space at a charter school is limited, admission is frequently allocated by lottery based admissions. Some charter schools provide a curriculum that specializes in a certain field– e.g. arts, mathematics, etc. Others attempt to provide a better and more efficient general education than nearby public schools.

This first post is not intended to depress. It is intended to spell out in some detail why a change is necessary, i.e. why the current American public education system is inadequate. As a math teacher, I will begin with the TIMMS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study). Every four years a non-profit organization based out of Washington D.C. attempts to provide “reliable and timely data on the mathematics and science achievement of U.S. 4th- and 8th-grade students compared to that of students in other countries. Throughout my credentialing program, the TIMMS report was discussed extensively, in particular, the fact the United States consistently scored in the middle despite being amongst the leaders in per pupil spending.

Again, my intention is not to depress. First and foremost, I wish to state my belief upfront that these sorts of claims are misleading. There is something unique to American education that is difficult to quantify and thus does not make itself apparent in these sorts of studies: American education is about equity. What I mean by this, is that in theory, any one individual American student has the same educational opportunities as any other one individual American student. This is not the same in most countries. For better or for worse, most countries sort students prior to entering secondary education. For better or for worse, in theory, every American secondary student has the same educational opportunities. Looking at the TIMMS, when we note that Singapore has the highest performing mathematics students on the planet, keep in mind that Singapore does not teach higher mathematics to all of their students.

Before continuing, let me say that this series will assume that equal education for all is the highest of goals. I do not wish to entertain discussions on whether our system should include trade schools or alternative educations of any type. I am operating under the belief that every American teenager should be given the opportunity to attend a four-year university. To be clear, as our economy completes its transition from an industrial into an information economy, this is absolutely necessary. Which brings me to the state of the American public education system … WHY DO WE NEED CHANGE?

Let us begin with a discussion of the current educational model. This model was developed nearly 100 years ago to confront the needs of a burgeoning industrial nation. Its stated goals were very different from our current stated goals. Where today we discus equity in education – preparing every child for university matriculation and engendering in every child higher level problem solving skills and abstract thinking – the goals of our antiquated system were much more simple. Our current public education system was built to process a large number of students in order to prepare them for the performance of some rote task, i.e. the goal was to develop industrial workers. To be clear, the preparation of industrial laborers was what the country needed at the time. We were in the midst of the Industrial Age. Most American jobs were in large factories. In order to be competitive in the global economy, America needed strong, capable workers. It makes sense then, that our public education system resembled a factory.

During this time, success could be measured in a very different way. When the vast majority of students would not be attending university, it was not always necessary that they even graduate from high school. They needed to be competent at learning a simple, repetitive task that may require some manual strength. If this is what is needed, then it makes sense to have students moved through an assembly line of classes (six 45 minute periods) and a dropout rate of 50% or more is tolerable. For the majority of the twentieth century, there were more than enough jobs waiting for these young men and women.

America’s economy is no longer based around industry. Yet our schools are still run as if they are factories. Public education is impersonal. Teachers teach upwards of 150 students at a time. Counselors have caseloads of 500 students. The focus of education is on behavior management as opposed to conceptual understanding. Often times a student’s locker may be his or her only stable point of reference during an eight-hour day. Imagine doing your job having to work at six different desks during the day. The result: students at urban schools (often disproportionately African-American or Latino) dropout at rates above 50%. Few are being prepared for jobs that use higher level thinking.

The short answer to the question: Why is a Change Necessary? We are no longer an industrial economy that needs Industrial laborers. We are an information economy that requires thinkers.

I will leave you with a short anecdote of an informal anthropological observation I have made. I live on the West side of Los Angeles near the UCLA campus and Santa Monica. For those unfamiliar with the geography of Los Angeles, the West side is the “wealthy”/”white” side of town. I teach in South Los Angeles (a few blocks from Central Avenue which would mean I teach in “South Central” Los Angeles). South Los Angeles is the “poor”/”brown” side of town.

I made an observation during a recent trip to my cell phone provider’s store front. Doing an informal count of the employees of this particular store (located at 26th and Wilshire in Santa Monica), I noted that the vast majority of the customers of this particular store were white. I then noted that the vast majority of the employees of this store were people of color (African-American, Latino). This was a jarring observation to me, particularly because the majority of these employees were just a few year older than my students and definitely of university age. Was this their destiny, to wind up as customer service employees for a multi-national cellular phone company rather than attending university? As anyone who has had to troubleshoot their cellular phone can attest to, working for the company requires intelligence. Could it be that, without a university level education, my students are destined to sell their intellect at slightly higher than minimum wage as customer service technicians rather than at healthy salaries (we assume with a substantial benefits package) as designers, engineers and executives for these same companies? This is a question that I do not yet have the answer to.