Special Education Teachers can do their jobs, they're just not able to

              I remember the first time a veteran teacher told me a student will never get it. I didn't understand what that meant. As a Special Education teacher I thought my job was to help the kids who didn't get it eventually get it. It never crossed my mind that there could be a class of students who were hopeless. But as the year went on and my low kids stood low, I felt for a second maybe the veteran teachers were right. Maybe these kids were actually hopeless and could not possibly learn the content at the current level we were at. I mean I had a student who could hardly divide, let alone determine ratios. Perhaps I was just a new teacher in way over their head. Now that it's my second year I realize I was completely wrong.
             As a requirement for my graduate school program, I tutored a 7th grader twice a week for a total of 2 hours. The student I chose happened to be one of my "hopeless" students from last year. At first I was uneasy choosing her as my focus student, remembering the behavior outburst and her lack of meaningful progress fresh from the year before. Furthermore, our focus subject, math, was something she was seemingly abysmal at since she presented the inability to divide even simple one digit dividends and divisors. What could I possibly accomplish with her? Then in a matter of two months she proceeded to become proficient at long division solving problems with dividends of up to 3 to 4 digits with divisors up to 2 digits. In two months I became a teacher for the first time and she "got it."
            One might chalk this up to the individual attention she received, but I can confidently say that aside from the first few sessions, the rest of her progress was purely auto-pilot. Through comprehensive assessment and observation, I was able to determine the conceptual breakdown in her math. From there I implemented a series of strategies to help her become proficient at division. Once she became adept at utilizing the strategies on her own it was smooth sailing. Dividing became second nature for her and she was successful weeks after being taught how to do it. I can confidently say my student can divide, a skill that's invaluable in math and life. I achieved in a matter of 10 to 12 hours, what I could not achieve in an entire year. That is ridiculous.
            Special Education teachers in an ICT setting are often given far more than the state mandated percentage of special education students. Classes can sometimes be comprised of a 50/50 split of general education to special education students, making it impossible for a special education teacher to develop the strategies needed to help special education students access content appropriate to them. Furthermore, the push to mainstream students have led special education reformers to champion ICT classrooms. In schools like mine which have no other alternative settings, students who cannot handle ICT classrooms are thrown in them anyways. These students are at times worse than their overcrowding counterparts as they require constant attention that a special education teacher in an ICT classroom cannot give. If a student is 3 to four years behind in content, ICT is definitely an option for them. But a student at a 1st or 2nd grade reading level, exhibiting a specified reading disability should not be in an ICT classroom without some form of supplement. Yet those are the kind of students in our classrooms and those students cannot succeed in the setting. The result is a Sophie's choice dilemma where a special educator either abandons this particular student, often resulting in that student acting out in protest to this abandonment, or shirking their responsibilities to her other students in exchange for this student.
           The solution to this problem will never come from the department of education itself. The institutions around the country are concerned with their bottom line and view special education as a problem to be dealt with instead of an essential component of their mission. The solution must come from informed parents and informed special education litigators. At every IEP meeting there should be a special education advocate. Special Education advocates are people who are well versed in the rights and protections afforded to parents, who are going through the IEP process. They will come to meetings and be able to challenge the often stonewalled nature of the IEP team. Schools and school psychiatrists are typically on the same team when it comes to recommending services. Since they need special education students they will often collude to make it seem their course of action is the only course of action that should be taken. If some of my parents were just a little more informed, they would be able to hold me and in turn my administration more accountable. Of course the blame isn't with my school, but with the administration that straps schools tight for resources when it comes to special education. They will continue tossing IEP student after IEP student to a school, regardless of whether that school can service them or not. Administrations are taught to deal and that's exactly what they do. If I leave teaching, I will definitely find some way to get involved in advocating for parents because this process needs to stop. I want to find a solution that makes schools and parents happy. 

The shame of quitting Teach for America (intended for corp members)

                     One discussion I think every corp member tries to avoid is the one where they must discuss someone quitting the corp. This can range from someone you barely knew at Institute to one of your closest friends in your new city. People quit Teach for America all the time and as a corp member you probably have made plenty of friends who quit. Unfortunately the culture around quitting Teach for America is still very much one of shame. Whereas in the past I've heard of people openly badmouthing corp members who quit, now there seems to be an implicit shame that is marked upon those who quit. When someone quits, suddenly their lives become a huge question mark. We all discuss them as if we are not sure if they quit or not, when we all pretty much know they left. If they tell us, we discuss their departure in two manners, either vehemently defending them or halfheartedly defending them while insinuating a dash of irresponsibility. What is left is an awkward process where those who quit must divorce themselves from all facets of the corp, be it positive or negative. Eventually, if you're lucky, some of your tfa friends draw a line in the sand, making it clear that they don't care if someone quit. Unfortunately the opposite response is gradually ghosting someone's life until the moment you Facebook unfriend them goes basically unnoticed. Of course this also works in reverse. There are those who took their commitment very seriously and for the first time in their lives  are unable to complete something they set their mind to. The self guilt drives them to abandon all things TFA related, including the people. While some of this emotional messiness is unavoidable, if the culture was a little more open about why people quit and how people can quit without divorcing themselves from the mission, I think it would actually lead to fewer people quitting.
                  First, we need to change the taboo over quitting. Often when people quit it comes as an abrupt decision, even if you knew they were having difficulty for months. That's because it's frowned upon to admit that you're contemplating quitting. Instead you put on the smile and persevere for the kids. But what if corp members were able to openly discuss that they were considering quitting? Then we'd actually know who needs extra support and who is just working through some kinks. Teaching is a difficult and arduous journey, but that does not mean the desire to quit makes someone a lost cause. In fact the desire to quit could be one of the strongest indicators for an immediate intervention. Someone who is about to quit can possibly be at the moment where they are open to taking the most advice. If nothing is working, then sometimes changing everything is all that is left. Any form of communication about quitting should be preferred over the drawn out process of silent contemplation that leads to eventual abrupt resignation.
          To make a conversation about quitting a safe one we need to stop openly shaming people who quit. People who quit can be discussed in a constructive manner. In fact, instead of turning a blind eye it's probably better that people openly digest the departure of a corp member. We can acknowledge all the challenges they faced and how they were and were not supported by TFA, their school, the district, etc. An open forum that focuses on constructive speech, rather than punitive could hold other stakeholders accountable who are often left off the hook for a corp member quitting. Rarely do we ask what could the principal have done or what could the TFA office have done. The onus is typically forced on the corp member themselves. Responsibility won't be completely stripped from the corp member, it will just be contextualized.
      Finally, we need to acknowledge our own judgmental tendencies and try our hardest to disarm them. I am especially guilty of this. I am proud of the time I've spent as a corp member and it frustrates me when people quit for personal opportunity, leaving schools and several classes of children in complete disarray for months. But just because you're time in the corp is enjoyable does not mean everyone else is having the same experience. When someone quits and it is discussed, people need to keep their minds open and more importantly need to empathize with the person quitting. It's not enough to simply critique. For any true healing to occur we must accept that a person can quit for a perfectly legitimate reason and we do not have the authority to judge.
       So to all my friends who have quit TFA, I apologize if you ever felt like I thought less of you for quitting. I honestly find that many of my friends who quit legitimately wanted to continue in their service, but could not. They had to maintain their own personal health, which is always a top priority for an individual.


Side note: While this may clear the air on my feelings towards quitting it does not somehow legitimatize the obnoxious TFA horror stories posted online. I find many of those posts to be fueled by malice and disappointment, often creating a narrative of inept teachers and principals, inept TFA staff, inept parents, and implicitly, inept students.  I urge anyone reading on this topic to get a plethora of viewpoints on the program before making a judgement. There is a lot of good and bad to be had from the program and from the education system in general. 

The intersection between power and free speech

            I'm sick and currently focused on teaching 64 12 year olds how to read and write. But the buzz about Yale and Missouri was enough to get me to write this blogpost. Specifically, the pure stupidity I'm reading from many people who are claiming "political correctness is getting out of hand." They throw their hands in the air and pull the fire alarm, claiming that their first amendment rights are under fire. Ironically enough these first amendment hawks are the ones who encourage censorship of the very free speech they disagree with. Typically if the issue was contained to just subreddit pages filled with entitled white men I'd just ignore it as business as usual. The real fiasco comes when people in a position of power, whose responsibility is to represent all students, favor a dominant narrative over a minority one. That is exactly what happened at Yale.
         The furor at Yale was precipitated by a bunch of emails sent by multi-cultural organizations urging people to be culturally conscientious when choosing their costumes. It basically amounted to a "don't be a dick" message that any reasonably decent person would take in good stride. Unfortunately Yale is full of the churlish and entitled, so students began to whine to the Dean about the emails'seemingly condescending messages. How dare they be told to care about other cultures! Of course instead of just acknowledging that they want the ability to be jerks without facing any repercussions, they fell back to the classic "freedom of speech" scare, arguing that if Sally Preston could not wear her skimpy American indian outfit, then she would be distraught with how her freedom has been severely limited.
        Before we talk about how Erika Christakis' response was a disgusting affirmation of an oppressive narrative that says minority culture does not matter when it inconveniences whites, we must interrogate whether these students were actually being censored. By all stretch of the imagination they were not being censored. Students were merely urged to be mindful of other cultures when choosing costumes. Bias incidents and other culturally responsive policies were not even brought up in the emails. Compared to Yale, the University of Michigan sends out emails that are far more punitive when encouraging people not to wear racially insensitive costumes. So these students really did not like the judgmental tone of the emails. Which is fine. I mean I personally think they all secretly want a carte blanche to be assholes, but there are deluded individuals out there who believe that if they want to dress up as a mariachi performer, then that's well within their right and the close to 34 million Mexicans in the United States just have to deal with it. The point is no one is forcing the students to not to be assholes. They're merely pointing out that if they act like insensitive jerks, then people may very well respond in a not so pleasant way.
      Professors, students and other faculty are allowed to have opinions on this. However, headmasters and other elements of University leadership have a job to protect and support all their students. That is why Erika Christakis' response was so inappropriate. It clearly affirms the argument that there is some justification behind wearing culturally reprehensible costumes. The email caricatures the very serious concerns minority students and other diversity organizations have over recent examples of black face and culturally insensitive costumes that had occurred on Yale's campus in previous years. Instead of the cautionary emails being a response to a prevalent and serious issue on campus, the emails were portrayed as a politically correct overreaction. The message comes loud and clear: your concerns are not that important to us, stop whining. And that's exactly the kind of position a headmaster needs to avoid. If anything it would have been far better for the headmaster and his wife to remain quiet. Instead she decided to affirm a consistent dominant narrative that undermines the concerns of minorities by reducing them to hyperbolic over sensitivity.
    First amendment rights are rarely threatened by the oppressed. When people take displeasure with your opinion they are not limiting your first amendment rights, they are merely utilizing their own. Often it's people with power who take immense displeasure with being questioned. People who cry that their first amendment rights are being denied often just want their opinions to be the only one respected. Minorities are allowed to complain just as long as it doesn't ruin anyone's fun. 

Rantathon!

        I just bought a new laptop so I'm excited to use the keyboard and suddenly on this day a bunch of stuff has got me ticked off, so I thought let me do a rantathon. The basis of a rantathon is I will riff on a variety of topics in varying lengths. Some riffs will be small, others might be really long. It's an organic process that kind of mirrors what it's like to have a conversation with me.


1. People refusing to commit to plans
            I am a bit of a hypocrite with this one because I do this as well, but this generation is the generation of opportunism. We all refuse to make plans because we all are secretly afraid of potentially missing a better opportunity due to prior commitments. In New York City this is even worse because the city has so many options and possibilities, you find that friends never want to make plans because they always want to keep their schedule potentially open for what might come along. You'll hear a slew of maybes, possibly, or the infamous "we'll see." What ends up happening is the friends who like to plan get togethers become frustrated and eventually just shirk their coordinating duties for hamster videos on youtube. The end result is a lot of people who don't go out because everyone is stuck in planning limbo. The solution to this is what I call the 3 strike rule. If someone asks me to go out, I can only keep them in uncertainty in 2 of my 3 conversations. By my third conversation , I either give them a definitive yes or no. Of course nobody wants to do that because they are still delusional enough to believe that they may be missing out on the best night they didn't know they were going to have.

2. Social Justice Extrapolation
        This is when someone in the social justice community takes a form of oppression and extrapolates it onto a seemingly unrelated example. Sometimes this extrapolation ends up being a great thought experiment on the pervasiveness of oppression in our lives. But most of the time it's just a huge ludicrous stretch that does nothing in the way of explaining oppression. While this isn't the worse thing ever, it is annoying. It affirms the caricature of the social justice warrior who moans and complains about everything. And I mean that caricature is also not too bad. Real talk, fuck the haters. But even I find it irksome to read an article that explains to me why pumpkin spice lattes from Starbucks are a form of neo-colonialism.

3. People who make plans last minute
     This is something I don't particularly hate, but I do get frustrated with when I know it's going to inconvenience me. I enjoy spontaneity, I do, but we're adults now (kinda). We have jobs, responsibilities, league of legends to play. Meaning sometimes I don't want you to call me at 10:00 pm telling me to go out, when I already got into my PJs with Doctor Who loading up on my Netflix queue. I want some notice with that kinda shit. And I know sometimes it can't be avoided. Shit happens. Windows of opportunity are magically opened up by circumstance, luck and a little bit of flirting at that party last night with a guy named Jake who you thought was an asshole, but you failed to realize he wasn't just an asshole but an asshole who was also an event coordinator. The point is if you expect to see me, don't make last minute plans the only way you're going to do it because then you probably won't see me at all.

4. People who live in Manhattan or Brooklyn (gentrified parts)
   This ties into my first rant and third rant. The people I find who are notorious about refusing to make plans and who make plans last minute are people who live in Manhattan and Brooklyn. And it makes sense. Both tend to be incredibly close to the city, so often parties, bars and concerts are only a few minutes away for them. This leaves us true New Yorkers (i.e. people from Queens and the Bronx) with ridiculous commutes in order to meet our metropolitan friends. What's obnoxious about them is they're so ignorant to how inconvenient they're carefree attitude is for us Queens and Bronx peeps. This leaves many of us either in a perpetual state of guilt as we struggle to keep up with plans or simply not giving a fuck when people reach out to us.

Note: To my friends who might think "Damn Raymond is writing this about me" I probably am, but I don't honestly feel as vehement as my diction my indicates. It's more of making these blogposts entertaining and kind of funny. I love all of ya'll.

Why I hate management in high need schools

                         Whenever I discuss my teaching experiences with friends or family they are always taken aback by how strict I am with my students. Often they find my tales of strict discipline and at times borderline demoralizing behavior management as a cruel and unproductive technique that I should be disappointed in. The thing is many of these people have very little experience with how things actually function in the classroom and are quick to be judgmental, but also wouldn't want half of the kids in my classes interacting with their kids. First, let me be clear, my students are not bad kids. In fact I'm unsure if there are any actual bad kids. Many of my students come from difficult situations and therefore have rough outlooks on how the world should function. If all your life the people around you kept you in check through emotional and physical violence, then the expectation is going to be that those techniques are what constitutes respect. Enter the middle school teacher who has to manage 36 to 40 students in one classroom for around 3 hours a day. These students expect their teacher to be stern, strict and worst of all a bit scary.

The Charter Exception 
               You will hear charter schools argue that these management styles are not necessary. While it is true that in a Charter style school where expectations and school culture are congruent among all teachers it is possible to manage without being cruel, such a system cannot and will not ever be implemented in a public education setting. Furthermore, Charters have the luxury of kicking out truly insubordinate students, while in public schools those students often bounce around between class and suspension. This leaves many public school teachers feeling alone and unsupported in the classroom. Especially in high needs areas where parent involvement can be a question mark for some students. At a certain point you either crumble and allow chaos reign in your classroom, hoping nothing occurs to get you fired or you decide to make the locus of control centered around you.

The worst kind of tough love
             Once you've accepted that a small population of your students ( I would say around 10 of your students) need highly structured and strict management systems to be successful, you realize you need to impose such draconian measures on the entire class in order to make them work. What I mean is if I'm going to make "no getting up" a classroom rule and a student who you know is often absent minded decides to get up, then it's your prerogative to be incredibly strict and punish that student, regardless of whether they intended to be disruptive. This includes public embarrassment and harsh penalties for a student you know wasn't attempting to be disruptive in any manner. The reason for this is twofold. First, you don't actually know the intention of the student and perhaps the student is testing to see how breaking the rule will be taken (a rarity, but definitely possible) Second, you need to show other students who would also like to attempt to break the rules that there is no discrimination in how punishments are handed out. If a kid gets up, be it a straight A student or a student who is consistently disrespectful, they will receive the same punishment. Such consistency serves as a deterrent for students who aim to be disruptive. They figure if this teacher is going to be a hard ass, I'd rather take my nonsense to another classroom. And there's always another teacher who gets the brunt of the repressive system you implement in your room.

Why first years in high need schools suffer
           Your first year of teaching is demarcated by inconsistency, so it's no surprise many first years struggle with management. Even I struggled tremendously my first year (and I'm starting my second year now so the struggle might still be real). Veteran teachers, who already have rules and procedures in place and can instinctively make a student cry at the drop of the hat if need be, will go in hard and fast in the first couple of months. First years on the other hand tend to rely on taught management systems such as consequence hierarchies and reward systems, both of which aren't pragmatic when you have someone next door playing a game of "random public embarrassment."  To the veteran teacher's defense, they will proceed to engage in this draconian behavior for two months, thus establishing themselves as the locus of control in the classroom. After which they will then be able to be more lax even pleasant if they choose to be. Unfortunately the process of always frown till Christmas takes a toll on the psyche of the teacher, veteran or new. It causes many teachers to develop cynical attitudes as forms of psychological dissonance in order to justify their actions to themselves. As you become more established you can do less. As you become stronger in the school, students instinctively know not to test. But the scars you have to inflict and gain on the road to that level of management are deeper than one might think.

I can't condemn what I also preach
       And even though I am talking about how toxic this process can be, the very same day I might assert my locus of control in the classroom. I have no doubt that as I write this, while my students are taking their writing baselines, one student will decide to do something I find unacceptable. I will decide in that split second if I want to embarrass him or her on the spot to make them a sacrificial lamb for the other students to see. Right now I see a student with his head down in clear defeat due to the fact that he most likely can't even read the writing baseline passage. But he's sleeping in my class and that's straight up unacceptable. He is acting this way because he is frustrated. I'm frustrated that he's gotten to this point. But what do I do? Do I preserve this student's insecurity and emotional tenor in ELA and by doing so risk the respect and obedience of my students. Or do I callously use his insecurity to make him an example of what might happen to any student who decides not to put effort in my class. I've chosen to take a middle road. A general announcement to the class about keeping your head up. But if another kid decides to put their head down, it would be because I let the first student slide. These are the decisions we make in the classroom.

Strict does not need to be disrespectful
     While I am espousing a strict and dictatorial classroom, I am not advocating any form of disparagement or disrespect of your students. I have never called one of my students stupid or incapable due to their academic performance. Nor have I ever mentioned particulars of their academic performance to the class. That is a sacred trust between you and your student and once you've crossed that line you've completely lost any faith a student can have in you as a teacher. You do not need to demean your students in order to get them to listen. Instead you can be honest with them. For example, if a student is acting in a way that's going to earn them a failing mark and detention, then maintain that as your line of defense. I don't need to insult you, I'm just going to remind you about how problematic your situation can become. Some teachers resort to insults and demeaning statements. I think that's unnecessary, but then again I can't knock a teacher who does what they need to do to teach their kids.

Discipline with love
             It's not like students in high needs schools are worse than students from affluent areas. The difference is students from high needs schools have been taught different forms of authority and therefore expect you to mimic many of the authority techniques used by their parents and the adults around them. Detention doesn't sound bad to a kid who's been jumped before. Calling home does not matter if your parents barely have control over you. We need to work to bolster families and remove violence from neighborhoods so that teachers do not have to act like dictators in the classroom. There will always be one or two students who have behavior issues, but when stern warnings and calls home aren't enough to deter bad behavior, then we need to start fixing what's making our kids grow up too quickly. 

Satire doesn't preclude you from being an asshole TW: Fatshaming

                   Time to explain simple literary concepts to the hateful individuals of the internet. Today's lucky winner of being made to look like a complete fool is comedian Nicole Arbour, who defended her "Dear fat people" video as satirical and therefore not meriting the huge criticism it received. What she didn't realize is that satire does not preclude you from all criticism. Satire as defined through a quick google search is"the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues." Meaning you take a particular issue and you treat it in a ridiculous manner to get a point across. A good example of satire that doesn't merit any criticism is the "defined lines" video which shows women treating men in the same objectifying manner women were treated in the "Blurred Lines" video. That is satire because it takes an aspect of the political issue, the objectification of women, and shows that when the genders are reversed the actions are considered hyperbolic and absurd, strengthening the original argument that the treatment of women in these videos are often demeaning (I spent 5 minutes thinking of a word that encapsulates how I feel and had to settle with ridiculous). People were quick to criticize the video as not practicing what it preached because it showed men in an objectified manner, but that was the point of the commentary!
                On the other hand Nicole Arbour's hateful video gains its impetus by being molded from the "real talk" genre. You know, the comedian who thinks they're saying the horrible thing that everyone was secretly thinking, but nobody was willing to say. Unfortunately for her, many people did not hold her hateful and disgusting thoughts, so what was supposed to come across as a reality check for her audience came across as a hateful diatribe, which is exactly what it was. Its hyperbolic nature does not change that the author's actual beliefs must in some way be rooted in the belief of this hate otherwise the conceit of the joke would be missing. Trust me no one is laughing because of how incredulous her actions and statements are, instead they're laughing because they partially agree with her fat shaming philosophy. But too bad for Ms. Arbour. Not many people are laughing.
             Yet she isn't the only hateful individual who has used the satire shield to prevent themselves from being called out as a disgusting bigot. The Republican party is notorious for making inappropriate jokes and merely writing them off as satirical or hyperbolic. Take any sound bite from Donald Trump and you can confirm this to be true about the Republican party. But why has satire become the venue for hatred? Well haven't you heard? Racism doesn't exist. And since Racism doesn't exist it can only function in an implicit manner. Satire and exaggeration serves as the shield that makes racism/sexism/ableism/etc. implicit and that's why its the literary element of choice for racial bigots. Or sometimes people who pretend they're not racist like another white comedian called Amy Schumer who got a free pass because we all loved her movie Trainwreck so much. But if you want to read about how she fucked up, check this awesome post.

A note on censorship: I personally am against censorship because it is a slippery slope for what is considered hateful and bigoted and what is just an uncomfortable reality. But if a publisher or website such as youtube wants to know if I'd like to see the video get taken down, the answer is a vehement yes. The video is hurtful and harms the self confidence of so many people with weight issues. I myself am obese and can speak to how furious I became listening to the video. But the final decision is with youtube. Do I have to respect it? no, but that's the way it has to be. 

Why Charters are a part of the problem

                  Another day, another article detailing how Charter Schools hurt our overall education system. But I don't want to focus on the specifics of that article. I just want to enumerate why the charter system is intrinsically detrimental to the overall public education system. First, the charter system does not have to be removed. There is a place for Charter Schools in the country. Charter Schools exist so new pedagogy and educational philosophies can be tried outside the public education system. Through this experimentation, public education can possibly pick up useful techniques and advice in order to better themselves. The issue comes when charters expand into huge networks that essentially take the cream of the crop, leaving the most vulnerable students to the public education system. One might think the lottery system in Charters prevents this kind of cherry picking, but with suspension rates at Charters far outpacing that of public schools, it's no surprise that their iron clad management systems are effective at maintaining classroom management. Couple this with several of the famous charter systems being adept at finding private donors, and you have the perfect environment to propagate a myth of charter excellence. The reality is that charters are excellent because they remove students with behavior issues and they have full access to the resources necessary to teach. Of course all Charters are not created equal. Plenty of charters function like public schools and achieve similar, if not worse, results.
                 People might argue that at the end of the day the achievement created by these charters far outweighs any negative externality created by the sprawling charter system. However, there are some institutional downsides. Charters with more money to develop find themselves able to hedge prime locations for their schools, often pushing out potential public schools from being created. The brain drain effect is something that has not been explicitly researched and may be creating a system where teachers in public schools are bombarded with students who need academic assistance. If we're playing the numbers game, the question might be is it worth creating 600 exemplary students or about 800 above average, 100 exemplary, and 300 below average students. Of course those numbers are estimates, but the hypothetical set up is the true question posed by the charter problem. Do charters hurt the public education system enough so that their contribution of exemplary students does not outweigh the unintentional harm done to public education students? If the answer is yes, we need to reform the charter system. If the answer is no, then we need to spend time figuring out a threshold where charters need to be kept at. But the notion of expanding charters without any limits is a foolhardy one. There's an issue when one of my students, who attends what's considered the best public school in her neighborhood, talks about how her mother wishes she had been placed in a charter. Teachers know they're being shortchanged. Students know they're being shortchanged. The only people pretending they're doing no harm are the charter schools themselves.