What I don't understand about all this is why there isn't a way to use these clearly failing schools for experiments in alternative styles of education. Say what you will about things like voluntary attendance, but when your school is descending into anarchy, it just seems like there's too little to lose not to go out on a limb.
The school my mom used to work at was rampant with corruption and ineptitude. It was taken over by the state BOE and three years later, nothing has changed. When the school falls into dire straits, why not offer it up as a test case for passionate researchers?
> What I don't understand about all this is why there isn't a way to use these clearly failing schools for experiments in alternative styles of education.
As a resident New Yorker, I can answer this one: entrenched interests. There are a lot of people who have bought a lot of influence to achieve the status quo, and they don't really see what the problem is.
That's fine in very high population density urban areas, where there are a variety of schools and easy transportation between them.
It doesn't work in lower density areas. That was one of the most horrible provisions of NCLB, trying to make generalizations that could be applied equally well to an area where there are a wide array of schools and communities where you have one school for 500 students and getting to any other school is a serious hardship for the students involved.
And in those circumstances, trying to improve the existing school is the only option, since doing worse is unacceptable. (We're talking about years of children's lives here, and the only real source of education these communities have.)
The school my mom used to work at was rampant with corruption and ineptitude. It was taken over by the state BOE and three years later, nothing has changed. When the school falls into dire straits, why not offer it up as a test case for passionate researchers?