Per Previous

That last post grew out of some thinking I've been doing lately in response to the debate here in D.C. over Mayor Adrian Fenty's proposal to take over the DCPS system.

One of the big issues for opponents of Fenty's plan is that they believe parents need (and want) an elected school board as a forum to seek redress for their complaints about the public schools. Interestingly, many of the people making this argument are staunch opponents of choice and charter schools in D.C. I don't see this as a coincidence. Activism and choice are two distinctly different methods of trying to get schools to provide what you want for your child, so I think it makes sense that people who are particularly wed to one approach would be skeptical of the other. Of course, the two don't have to be in tension but can by mutually supportive, as Steve Barr's work in LA shows.

I know I have a clear bias here--I'm not a parent, but if I were, the choice approach, if available, seems much more sensible, efficient and rational to me than the advocacy route to get services for one's child--and part of me wonders if this is to some extent a generational issue.

I'm curious: Would you rather turn to advocacy before a public body or choice as a way to try to get educational services for your child? Or, in a more concrete example, would you prefer an elected school board or charter schools?

Let me know, and I'll post the most interesting and insightful comments I receive.