Anti-animosity

Peace, it could be wonderful

OK, SO we’re against fighting when fighting isn’t necessarily called for. Sometimes it is, but that’s another editorial or 35. (Abortion, taxes, crime, drugs, a weak dollar, sugar in cornbread.) And if a committee studying education in Arkansas spends a year putting together a study and says we should all work to get along better, fine.

More than fine. Call it necessary in these latitudes. As mama used to say, y’all act pretty.

But—and there’s always a but in these matters—let’s not confuse acting pretty with acquiescence. Some things are worth fighting for, like the best interests of the next generation. Even if we—that is, all of us—can disagree with more civility than in the past.

Last year a committee was put together—call it the Little Rock Area Public Education Stakeholders Group—to find ways to bridge some of the differences between traditional schools in Pulaski County and the increasing number of charter schools. Admirable enough, safe enough. In a more perfect world, traditional school districts wouldn’t be so frightened of charters, and would use them as they were intended: to learn from, as charters cast aside all the red tape and paperwork and union rules that have been piled upon the traditional schools over the decades.

So, after a year’s work, the LRAPESG (we think) said Pulaski County’s leaders needed a strategic plan for both kinds of schools, to learn lessons of the past, and to hold off on creating more school districts until everybody gets a handle on what’s best for the kids. It all seems so reasonable.

But then we saw some more details in the report. You-know-who lives in the details.

The report’s authors said that unfortunately charters and traditional schools have been framed as opponents “in the name of competition and choice.” And there are “deep fissures” and a “corrosive split” between the two.

And this: “Competition results in winners and losers, which begs the question: Which schools and which students are we content to pronounce losers?”

Oh, goodness. Where to start? Besides that the writers don’t seem to understand what begging the question means.

There certainly are deep fissures in education these days, and a split between those who’d back charter schools and those who’d go along to get along, as has been done for generations. But the thing is, we’ve not once watched as a hall was packed with charter school advocates out to shout down proposals for a traditional public school. Charter school proponents seem happy as punch to work alongside the traditional schools. If there’s a deep fissure, it’s not been created by both sides.

And since when does competition only result in winners and losers? Many times competition results in improvement for all. Ask the kids on the football field these August days.

The whole idea behind charter schools is to allow educators to work without the handcuffs, to see if they can somehow find a way to reach every student, and then show any success to the world. And, if the state will only allow it, see that the traditional schools copy the best ideas. See the laws on the books in Arkansas today that allow traditional schools to hire non-traditional teachers from certain professions and in certain classrooms if the charter down the street does. That’s exactly how charters are supposed to operate: When a charter works, copy it. When it doesn’t, close it.

We understand the need to stay civil in all things, especially when it comes to the education of our kids. (We’ll try extra hard in the future.) But we also can’t stay silent when a working committee like the LRAPetc. starts off with a premise that competition in education, or anything else, is necessarily a zero-sum game.

Come, let us reason together. Nicely.