A reader posted a comment that I think is profound. The more that people begin to see education as a consumer choice, the more they will be unwilling to pay for other people’s children. And if they have no children in school, then they have no reason to underwrite other people’s private choices.
The basic compact that public education creates is this: The public is responsible for the education of the children of the state, the district, the community. We all benefit when other people’s children are educated. It is our responsibility as citizens to support a high-quality public education, even if we don’t have children in the public schools.
But once the concept of private choice becomes dominant, then the sense of communal responsibility is dissolved. Each of us is then given permission to think of what is best for me, not what is best for we.
Here is what the reader wrote:
Parents have always been free to direct their personal funds to the private schools of their choice, for what they see as the additional private benefit of their own children.
But people pay taxes to support the public school system whether they are parents or not. If only parents are given a choice in the type of school system that tax dollars support, then only parents of school-age children should pay school taxes, and based on the number of children in school.
Private individuals are not entitled by any consideration of the common good to divert public funds for the sake of private corporate profit and personal religious preferences.
When people start seeing education as a private commodity that parents buy for their own children — just another personal choice, like whether to buy designer duds or that hot new toy — then we are going to see a taxpayer revolt like we have never seen before, and public-funded education will cease to exist.
Diane,
As you wrote in your book, this is the purpose behind NCLB.
NCLB is an example of the previous administration’s incompetence in the pursuit of ideology. The real goal of NCLB was to paint public schools as failing institutions, so that people would eventually demand vouchers to send their kids to private schools. Of course, poor people wouldn’t be able to do this. Only those with means would.
The rich have always resented having to spend money on the poor, and sending kids to school without their parents having to pay tuition is probably the greatest liberal idea ever. NCLB separates schools (and kids) into winners and losers, and further widens the divide between the haves and have nots.
You can expect Republicans to trot out the NCLB goal of 100% proficiency for all students in a couple years, even though that goal has been circumvented by Race to the Top. They will claim that Democrats have lowered our national standards, and continue to demand vouchers.
Decisions about schools are not made for educational reasons. They are made for political and economic reasons.
Tim
Good points, Tim, but make no mistake: this would appear to be the one bi-partisan national plan upon which all can agree. This is not merely from the Republicans–Race to the Top (& that’s the NCLB extension–it’s not really called NCLB any more. I’ve noticed that people refer to NCLB=Republicans, so that Democrats=RttT use that to make it sound better, but it’s really one & the same, & both parties agree on ramming it down our throats) has created even more misery w/regard to the existence of public schools. Ask any public school teacher & principal.
Testing has been ever expanded under the present administration, & the costs of the tests, prep materials, textbooks, etc. (in most states, monopolized by Pearson) have been draining billions of dollars that the state could be allocating in other, beneficial ways. In reading Diane’s blog, as well as “The Answer Sheet” (Valerie Strauss in The
Washington Post), you will find examples of Democrats all over the country playing the same kill-the-public-schools game & give the money to the privatizers.
BOTH PARTIES are complicit, & the present administration has set
the bad example for all of this.
amen. Neither party is getting off of the hook for this. A short look at Arne Duncan’s track record will show what the current admin had in mind from the start.
ReTired & William,
I appreciate your responses. There’s no way I would let Obama, Duncan, or Democrats off the hook, but I haven’t seen them talk about school vouchers. Has Arne Duncan supported them?
I remember John McCain talking about vouchers in 2008, and Mitt Romney is talking about them now. Vouchers are very popular with their constituents. Obama has a lot of work to do to earn teachers’ votes, but if he embraced vouchers, he could kiss them goodbye.
What a dreadful thought when it’s put this way!
I think about my students who given the choice, would be happy to stay at home and sort of attend an online school. Others are always quite happy to choose the easiest classes, yet when they are forced to take a challenging untracked class, they rise to the occasion. Many will choose segregated schools for a variety of reasons, or schools where most of the students share their religion or social class. None of this will be good for our democracy…
But the reality is that choice already does exist in the public school system: families that have the means choose to live where there are better school districts, usually away from urban areas. This is very common in Philadelphia, for instance, where the surrounding suburbs have excellent schools. Kids in Philly without the money to move, however, don’t have that choice and are forced to attend failing, unsafe schools. So let’s not sit here and pretend that the current system is somehow equitable.
Jacob
Skepticspolitics.wordpress.com
Twitter.com/skepticspol
You are right. The more choice, the less equity.
Does *anyone* here think it is fair that some districts are well-funded and that others aren’t? Of course it is terrible that innercity and rural districts have so many fewer resources and so much less support than many suburban districts! But let’s be clear, you will not make the poorly-funded districts better-off by making the well-funded districts poorer, even if that will (ironically) make things more equitable.
And when school “choice” finally finishes making its way from the innercity to the suburbs, suburban schools *will* be made poorer, in every sense of the word.
Right now we can look at the schools that serve our middle-class children and see that they compare well with the schools of all other developed countries; we can say we have a poverty problem, not a school problem. But after “choice” comes to the suburbs, the cry of the “reformers” will be made true and all of our schools will indeed be “problems.”
Even now in the bucolic suburbs, the effects of the school “reform” movement are hurting our schools: we spend too many instructional days preparing for, and giving tests; our curriculum has been distorted so that we can teach to the tests. These are things we have no “choice” about.
Finally, while I can’t speak for other areas, in my corner of Ohio, there is a marked decrease in community support for schools. Districts that have always passed levies are not, and significant cutbacks are being made. We are not immune to the forces working to dismantle public education (though sadly, too many of us appear oblivious).
It is just the Pragmatic Maxim in action, clarifying the meaning of mystifying mottoes like “School Choice” by teasing out their consequences in practice.
We can already clearly see how this happened to Pell Grants — given that they could be used at any college at the student’s choice, they were phased out of existence years ago. Same for Medicare — with elderly people being given a choice of doctors, no one else wanted to pay taxes for Medicare any more, and so it went down the drain. (Right?)
I hope you aren’t seriously suggesting that a university can be funded wholly on the grants, loans, scholarships, and tuition money that students bring with them?
I am not sure what you mean about Pell grants as they are very much in existence. Most of my students are paying for part of their college with them. They may have changed and there is always talk of getting rid of the program, but they are still there.
I was just pointing out that choice exists in many other government programs. Just because the government funds something doesn’t logically imply that the government has to be the sole proprietor. Instead, it can subsidize people’s choice of doctors, colleges, or K-12 schools. It makes no sense to single out the latter as if it were some existential threat.
Give me a break. Government is not now, nor has it ever been the “sole proprietor” of education. There has always been the “choice” of private schools.
And don’t start with the “but not everyone could afford them.” Private schools are an extra; they are not an essential service or even what could be considered an essential amenity, such as parks. As it is, they do recieve some federal government support in the form of tax exemptions, and in at least in my home state of Ohio, other support through the state as well.
Most of us here do not object to the existence of private schools. What we object to is the DISMANTLING of the public schools, and there replacement with schools run by corporations or other groups that are not accountable to the citizenry. Despite your protest, there is now ample evidence that the movement to privatize schools is indeed an existential threat to public schools.
Finally, if I were you, I’d drop the Medicare analogy since there is a movement to dismantle that program too!
When did the idea of market value enter into education. For my research it looks like maybe the 1960s but I’m not sure.
SCHOOL CHOICE is a huge deal in Delaware. Legislation over a decade ago created statewide school choice. I am free to apply for my child to attend any public school in the state, as long as there is room at the school. This has led to massive over-crowding at some schools–but never mind that. Additionally, it is supposedly my responsibility to get my child to the school of our choice–however, in some districts, transportation is provided and arranged to schools of choice–costing the district much more than standard neighborhood school transportation.
Parental choice has become the watchword for many. Charter schools are one of the choices. Protection and enhancement of all of this “school choice” has taken on the context of sacred ground. Now parents insist that they have “choice” and that their demands for choice be met–damn the consequences; damn the impact on our local district community schools. “I want the best for my child” was the headline during a recent public debate on charter school expansion. I want the best for everybody’s child. I think that there is a distinction.
Northern Delaware underwent court-ordered desegregation in 1978. It took until the late 1990’s for someone to come up with a way to undo what that order had done. I knew the moment I heard about school choice, that this was the death-knell for several of our city schools and several of our suburban high schools–the only remaining high schools for city students, who to this day are bused for miles to attend high school and middle school.
I was oh so right. At least one local school board reveled in school choice and failed to pay attention to the dissolution of the less desirable schools–less desirable due to their urban locations or their higher percentages of minority students–creating schools the can be classified as the haves and the have nots.
Oregon passed an “Open Enrollment” law recently. This is from this month’s OEA magazine:
Open Enrollment: What it Means for Our Schools
Oregon’s new Open Enrollment Law allows students to transfer out of school districts. Though districts are no longer able to prevent students from transferring elsewhere, they are still able to deny the entry of new students. This new change is expected to affect schools districts across the state to varying degrees.
While Portland Public Schools has 108 students planning to leave, David Douglas anticipates a gain of 35 students. Similarly, Corbett boosted enrollment by 138, while neighboring Reynolds School District expects to lose 95 students. Because enrollment numbers affect funding from year to year, the law has the potential to change each district’s financial outlook for better or worse, depending on what families decide.
How in the world would a young family ever be able to afford the expense of privatized educations for their children? Why with vouchers, of course! Or better yet, call them “tax credits” for those who don’t like the “v” word. Either way, the system will still have to be funded with public tax dollars, but the dollars will be diverted to the shareholders and employees of the privatized education corporations. What could be more American than that, right? Well, this founding father envisioned something far better for our nation:
“The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves.” — John Adams
We the people must never allow ourselves to become dependent on private “benefactors” of any kind, for “private” allows the concealment of motives and actions. We need to keep public education “public.”
This brings up something I’ve thought about for years. What would happen if parents used vouchers for charter schools & the charter schools later were deemed to be “failing,” then were closed? In Chicago, a number of charter schools are closing, in large part because “failing schools can be closed quickly–teachers can be fired
at will.” Would students have to move to, perhaps, several different
schools in as many years? How would that benefit students?
There is a local blog that has this scary quote from Andrew Rotherman at the top of their sidebar: “”Public education in the United States is…being de-regulated, and that never happens without a fight. What it really boils down to is producer interest versus consumer interest. In the sweep of American history it may take a while, but the consumers ultimately win.” – Andy Rotherham
Note that public interest is not even considered and the quote leads on small step away from teacher/union bashing.
Andrew Rotherham, who write a column for Time magazine, is very much in the “reform” camp. He may or may not be right. People pushing an agenda always try to make it seem inevitable. I’m not so sure that the American public will willingly hand over its public schools to deregulated charters and voucher schols run by religious groups, eager amateurs and for-profit corporations. Markets do not favor the poor, nor do they produce equity.
Yes, & he shall proven incorrect by parent groups such as in your previous post on Oakland!
Hmm… There’s a little grain of truth to that- but then again, I think that was recognized by most people when schools were integrated. Vast numbers of people realized that they still had a choice, and that they could still maintain the ability to provide a better education for their children than other children. There’s a myth that people have an interest in educating children- which includes the myth that teachers as a whole care about educating children- that isn’t based much on what happens in schools. Teachers are like soldiers; there are a few who do it for altruistic reasons, the majority turn it into a job, that produces schools that are only as effective as the administrations that run them.
Most people who can afford it send their children to private schools- and this includes the people in the administrations. The more educated you are, the more you know that you can choose to educate your children well through manipulating either the zip code or sending them to private schools.
I would say that this bell has already rung, and by and large that the people who administer school districts, who make rules about schools, and who impact how children are taught already know and act to ensure that their children are educated. If one looks at public school systems, the only conclusion can be that people don’t care about other children and know they can make that choice. That they could do so was proven by the state and federal legislature’s willingness to allow and promote private education for children of privilege while at the same time refusing to use any of the lessons they learned from having their children in those private schools as a model for how to run the public school system.
Even more sad is that the teacher’s unions haven’t been willing to stand up and demand the right or the ability to teach using effective methods, preferring to “fight” for benefits and protections. So… It’s just the same old story, isn’t it?
This has been the right’s agenda for a long time. It’s two-pronged: attract votes by giving vouchers to parents have already opted out of public schools, including kids in the southern private schools that started when integration did; 2. Provide business opportunities with charter schools. Everything else on their agenda is about making the public schools (“government schools” in their words) look bad. Diane, did you see this agenda when you were on the other side?
Also, since there are fewer white kids proportionally in the public schools than there are white voters, race enters into the picture.
Sandra, I was not aware of the for-profits, but very informed about the right’s visceral distaste for anything thatis “government” or public. Private is allegedly always best. Except when it isn’t. These days, I feel sure that the right is moving confidently with the help of unwitting moderates, to dismantle public education.
Hasn’t this bell already rung?
After integration of the schools, huge numbers of people realized that they could maintain segregation by moving, either their residence or by placing their children in private schools. The legislatures, the NEA, all of those people chose to ignore the methods of the much more successful private schools or the essentially private ones, and all allowed the relatively cheaper and much easier bureaucratic method to prevail in all of the public school systems.
I think what you’re seeing now is just the inevitable result of three groups who haven’t really been arguing about Educating for the last 40 years, but have been arguing Politics. The idea of “Private Choice” is, and has been dominant since the 1980’s; everyone who wanted to ensure their children got a good education put their kids in elite or private schools. Those who couldn’t afford it knew (know) they just don’t have that choice, and at that point it’s pretty hard to get too worked up about what happens to the school system as they don’t think they have any say in the matter.
When you say that most people gave up on public education, you are wrong. 90% of students in this country are in public schools.
Well- attendance isn’t synonymous with acceptance. Somewhere around 30-70% of those kids also won’t graduate. Attendance is mandatory, so the kids have to, and I’d agree that only about 15% of the people in the country can afford to send their kids to private schools.
Now- there are some great public schools, but none of them are standard “mainstream” schools. There are some great teachers even in the mainstream schools, but they only make up about 10% of the teachers at most. Getting into one of their classes is a lottery.
I think that solving that problem is a crucial part of the “choice” equation. One has to feel that they have a choice for there to be a reason to promote public education. Right now the only real choice is dependent on income.
Lavrans123
How did you come up with only 10% of the teachers being great?
Are you just making this up?
A simple Google search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_outcomes_in_the_United_States_by_race_and_other_classifications#High_school_graduation) shows that lavrans123 huge range for graduation rates is off (although with a range that large, I suppose it’s correct in a sense. One of the numbers in that range is going to be right). I doubt the 10% is more than a made up number. How does one truly measure the efficacy of teachers? It certainly can be done, but it wouldn’t be easy.
High school graduation rates today are the highest they have ever been in our history, according to the latest federal data.
Diane
Statistics are difficult pills. As this article from the Oregonian points out that, when including students who take 5 years to graduate, the Portland school district manages a 56% graduation rate. That’s in the middle of my range. The Federal data may be correct, but may also be incorrect- it all depends on where the data comes from. (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/01/portland_school_district_raise.html)
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/high-school-graduation-rate-rises-in-us/2012/03/16/gIQAxZ9rLS_story.html) puts graduation average at 72.5%, up from 71% in 2001- a whopping 1.5% gain, but a number that has some questions attached.
That gets to the 30-40% dropout range- should be 27.5-44% range for an average, depending on how or where one chooses to measure. The neighborhood school my son went to ranked 2nd from the bottom in the PPS district, and the average DROPOUT rate for kids in that school is over 70%. That means 2 out of every 10 kids he went to school with there will opt to drop out.
Statistics are difficult pills. Everything hinges on perspective. I can find areas with 90% dropout rates, and areas with single digit dropout rates, but I suppose I should be happy that the national average has dipped a full two and a half points under that 30% range?
Whoops- 2 out of 10 will graduate, not drop out. 2 point something, but you know, how many .4 or .6 children do you know?
oh- sorry about the double post- I didn’t mean to put up the earlier one (too many half-points)
Ours attend a public charter, not-for-profit, not managed by a for-profit corp/manager, It is an instrumentality of the district. It started 16 years ago. ( I KNOW! 16 YEARS!- when no one even knew what a charter meant.)
Still accountable to school board. FUnded the SAME way. Must take demographic equal to district, must serve special needs, etc. Basic difference is only in curriculum. A very rigorous curriculum. It works. Entry by lottery, limited number of spots despite great demand. We have been calling it choice- but recently have not liked the affiliation with for-profit charters. I advocate for calling it an OPTION. I think it lacks the autonomy many seek with charters but district is also site based so what money we have we are able to budget to what we want. We run very very very very lean. As all public schools do. We hear every day how we are stealing from local public schools. We are local. We are public. We are a good school. I wish there weren’t so many mixed messages about charters/ choice/vouchers/public/autonomy, etc. There are some great public charters out there. Let’s find them, an let’s duplicate or expand. Anyone care to visit? give me a shout.
We need to distinguish between the original model of charter schools, where the demand for experimental variation came from the community of educators, parents, and students, and the current “weaponized” model of charter schools, where the demand is being driven by big-money media-blitzing privateers with an ideological agenda who just keep pushing their “relentless program” in spite of what the voters have said time and time again.
Actually Jon, having helped write the nation’s first charter public school law, and having worked with legislators throughout the country, you might be interested in knowing that the majority of charters are not part of an educational management organization or a charter management organization. And I’ve visited some of the Yes Prep schools charters in Houston, which are part of a group and thought them very good schools.
I come from a tradition in educational philosophy that has always valued exploration and experimentation with new ways of learning and teaching, including alternative schools and laboratory schools.
Up until a couple years ago, my image of a charter school would have been something like the University High School that U of Michigan used to operate partly as a normal school, I guess, back when I was an undergrad there. My local university operates 8 charter schools in Detroit that have by all accounts an excellent reputation.
But we are talking about that sort of thing here.
It is too bad that we have to talk about the bad cases, but the bad cases, but the bad cases are really bad, getting worse, and going viral.
So we have to deal with bad things first. And urgently.
Err@um …
But we are not talking about that sort of thing here.
It seems to me that if we withdraw the public from public schools and go to a system that is entirely consumer-choice driven, the natural consequence will be that some (perhaps many) children/families will be left with no access whatsoever, much like the current situation with healthcare. Think of the millions without healthcare in our privatized system. Might the same thing happen with privatized education?
You can bet on it. Unregulated market dynamics has two notable properties:
(1) It is inherently unstable, suffering catastrophic oscillations.
(2) it acts to concentrate rather than distribute market control.
Monica, clearly what would happen is that you would see chains of garbage schools springing up which would charge exactly what the amount of the voucher check was (since completely eliminating public schools assumes passing out checks to families with kids). Parents who couldn’t make up the difference between that amount and the tuition of a decent private school would be forced to send their kids to these awful schools. Meanwhile, taxpayers would be partly subsidizing private schools for kids from better off families.
Linda- 10% is a law of averages. Lake Woebegone is a magical place where everyone is special and all the children above average. Out here things are a little different. I attended approximately 20 schools up and down the West coast. That was enough to get me interested in education and what it is, because it became very clear to me very early that public schools didn’t spend a lot of energy on education. Now my son is attending and I’ve been thrust back into the fray, only to find that there really isn’t much different between Oregon schools in the 1970s and Oregon schools today. Ditto Washington. It all backs up what most of my reading on education has said, which is that schools have primarily been managed according to politics, not education.
Lawrence Cremin’s series on American education is a wonderful read that is pretty relevant to this thread.
I’m not sure where the idea is that the schools will all become consumer choice driven. Some of the argument reminds me of a quote from a legislator in response to people worrying about Dewey and the Chicago school’s writings on education which goes something like this: Their arguments are so theoretical, so far in the stratosphere that by the time they come into play in the schools we will all be long gone, and we don’t know what the country will look like then.
Point being that it’s a worthwhile debate to have, but also to recognize what parts of it are probable and which are the points that need to be focused on. For what I see, what is important is that educators in the public system work on showing the general public that there is a benefit to them over the private sector. That isn’t clear, and the theoretical problems with moving to a private for-profit business running public schools is just that- theoretical at this point. Public educators just aren’t doing a good job- I would argue that they can’t because the system they work under doesn’t allow a good teacher to make more than a passing difference. The way that public school systems are governed precludes most schools from being effective for most students.
Educators can change that. But they can’t change it if they work in the system as it is. At the same time, unless they begin to force through some effective change, there is no good reason for the greater public to support public teachers or public education.
My experience is the opposite…10% are not great. It appears from your post this is based upon your readings and your experiences only. Interesting but not factual. Thanks for responding though.
Well- that makes your experience interesting but not factual, also.
You make an important argument though, and one that is part of this dilemma- one can’t have 90% of a group being “great”. It’s nice to think that everyone in a group is wonderful, but that’s prejudice, jingoism.
If experience and reading- that is, finding outside sources to inform your experience- doesn’t add up to “factual” (yeah, we all know facts are troubling things on m any levels), then what does? At the base level, all of what’s being said here is merely opinion, and while you may not like my opinion, it’s still one that is informed and part of the debate about schools…
I get it. Only your opinion is informed and all
Others are not. Got it! You assume no one else
Is reading or investigating and all experiences
Different from yours are not valid. Sounds like
You are a perfect match for the new faux
Reformers. Sorry for typos or alignment… iPhone.
Wait a minute, Linda- you’re the one who said that what I wrote wasn’t factual, but was merely opinion because it came from experience and reading. What you wrote infers that your opinion was factual.
I think you and I are using different criteria for “great”. To me “great” is a definition of how good one is at what they do, generally as compared to others doing the same thing. I suspect that you are using “great” as a qualifier for how you feel about people willing to be in the teaching profession. I would agree that 90% are probably good people trying to do their best. That’s not the same as being great teachers, even if that is what they want to be (something I am not really sure about, especially after the fatigue of working within the bureaucratic structure has been tearing at the romantic ideals of a young teacher’s enthusiasm for a dozen years).
That is one of the intractable problems within the debate. I dislike the Right wing attempt to bring in vouchers and faux “charter” schools in order to break the unions, but then again, I went to a fantastic charter school (Summit K-12) in Seattle that the administration spent 20 years trying to destroy. What did allow them to destroy it in the end was that the teaches and their union(s) in Seattle also decided they weren’t willing to support Summit. The unions allowed the administration to take punitive action against teachers who refused to move to different schools. They also allowed the administration to bring in teachers who by all rights should have been fired. We, as students, were taking attendance of teachers. Those same teachers forced a sports program on the school, they gambled on the games and hired students to play. They covered up assaults, and rather than standing up for the children, their union worked to protect those teachers and never once were willing to admit they were wrong for trying to keep those teachers in the system. So, I have seen pretty clearly that neither side is unsoiled in the fight. The Seattle teachers certainly weren’t willing to protect the students from their own, but then, some of those great teachers are still in the system. One, who is still a friend 25 years later, is still a teacher. She just returned to school after one of her students assaulted her and knocked her unconscious. No one is in a good situation here, but at the same time, no one is making a very good argument for why the system as it stands is worth keeping.
Advertising slogans like “School Choice”, “No Child Left Behind”, and “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Race To The Toilet” are the business of Mad Ave Mind Mongers, and they earn their Big Bucks the old-fangled way, by cranking out a never-ending stream of relentless positioning ads to disguise the reality beneath the rhetoric.
But educators are supposed to school their educatees in the arts of critical thinking allow them to lift the edges of the glossy ad copy and spy what’s hidden by the glitzy covers.
In the case of “School Choice” what’s being hidden is the fact that this is just another policy for giving more to those who have the most and taking more from those who have the least.
The largest government/publicly sponsored school choice program in the country is called suburban public schools. People who live in suburbs and send their children to those schools get a double tax break. They can deduct real estate taxes, and interest paid on house from their taxable income. WIth some forms of school choice, wealthy people have options, low/moderate income people don’t.
Let me say again, one of the uses of an advertising slogan is to hide the truth about the bill of goods in question under a euphemystical but over-simplifying to the point of sleight-of-hand show of words and images.
“Who Doesn’t Want 50% More Choice?”
No one but a petulant baby, of course.
But the job of a critical thinker is to detect the practical consequences of all the policy-pushing fine print that hides beneath the advertising banner.
So let us try to do a little more of that.
Thank you! I have been using this for years as my main argument against so-called “school choice,” especially vouchers, which I called “education welfare checks.” I have no children, and my property taxes for schools in this community are insanely high. I still think it’s a good use of money to create ONE public school system, available to all children — one which has open records and open board meetings with community engagement. Once you start issuing checks to families to pay for private school or creating unaccountable charter schools (especially the for-profit schools, which are an infestation here in Ohio), then I should be off the hook for paying those school property taxes.
Anastasia – you report that your property taxes are “insanely high.” Is the school system where you live truly available to all children – or only all children who live in the community? And what % of the children in that community are low income?
Joe, if you truly want to change the “choice by residence” paradigm, you have to change the funding mechanism. Ohio’s Supreme Court has declared it unconstitutional several times, but in more than 15 years, the legislature has sat on its ass and/or held 43 hearings about anti-choice bills no one asked for.
Because of that, pretty much all Ohio schools are available only or primarily to children who live in that community, although I understand that the outstanding magnet schools in Cleveland have slots for suburban kids — and empty seats as well, no lotteries. I don’t know why. It could be a parental knowledge issue or a transportation issue.
To answer your last question, an extremely high percentage (could be as high as 50%), because we are next door to one of the poorest communities in the state and families frequently move uphill to our district specifically for the schools. It’s unlikely anyone would be excluded for economic reasons with the foreclosure crisis having slammed us hard, leaving tons of affordable apartments available. We have a fairly unusual socio-economic-racial mix here that makes a lot of what is being said inapplicable, irrelevant or untrue in my town. But the bottom line is that I pay my taxes to have THESE schools available to all kids — and that includes the kids who move up out of the ghetto. I don’t pay them to give anybody a voucher, which if universalized and subtracted from what our schools get, would decimate them since we also have the highest percentage of kids going to private schools. That’s fine but as someone without kids, I shouldn’t have to pay for that.
Great Post! Today, education is viewed as a consumer choice. I send my 19mo old twins to a bilingual private school where I had a disturbing conversation with the Principal this morning regarding public schools and the trend of parents sending their children to private schools when they can afford to do so. I am currently a graduate student in a teacher preparation program focused on TESOL, and mentioned to her something about my experiences during my student teaching in public schools. She replied with “you don’t want to teach in public schools, do you?” Oh yes I do. I hope that I can give these students as good of an education that my children are fortunate to receive. I send my children to this school so that they may become bilingual, an advantage in today’s global economy. However, I struggle everday with my decision because I have the CHOICE that others do not have. I can afford to send them to this school, I also can afford to live in a “good” school district. Macedo, Dendrinos, & Gounari say it best in The Hegemony of English, “in a highly capitalistic society the only freedom remaining is the freedom to choose from preconditioned choices that often lead to a choice-less choice.” As middle class Americans choose to pull their children out of public schools or move to the “good” school districts, we are widening the gap. Real change needs to happen in educational policy and in our overall view of what education is. We need to be concerned with all children’s education, not just our own children’s. Americans need to remember that our children are our future workforce. If you are a CEO of a large corporation, wouldn’t you want those working for you to be the best of the best, even in the bottom roles?
Not only do we need to be concerned with the education of all children in U.S., but we need to let our politicians know that they too should be concerned and recognize that giving choices to “all” does not necessarily mean that “all” will have a choice. This condition of choicele-ss choice continues as Hinchey states in Finding Freedom in the Classroom, “largely because correcting them requires a more equitable school funding system and politicians have not had the courage to implement one, angering the more affluent voters whose schools would lose funds to poorer schools.”
I want the best education for my children, but I also believe that the future success of our country requires that I want the best education for all children in the U.S. I am willing to not only teach in public schools in hopes of giving a few as much as I can, but I am also willing to fight for better education policy. This is something I think we should all be doing.
Wow! The more choice, the less equity,” writes Diane. As a former urban public school teacher, administrator, PTA president and researcher, I’d reverse that. The less choice, the less equity. I realize that Diane promotes the neighborhood school as a major solution. But that will mean only wealth families have choices. Moreover, well designed choice plans give educators the chance to create distinctive schools, whether language immersion, Montessori or other. Having just one design for a school is like saying everyone will fit into a size 8 shoe.
Actually well-designed school choice programs increase the # of students who succeed. For example, we helped the Cincinnati Public Schools increase overall graduation rates, and eliminate the graduation gap between white and AFrican American students. One (but only one) part of this was helping district teachers create small schools of choice, open to all, within large buildings). The Cambridge, Mass school system found considerable progress when it convered to a system in which all its k-8 schools were options.
There was nothing wrong with the original idea behind charter schools. They were intended as experimental supplements to the public school system, operating with full accountability to the rules of a democratic egalitarian society. Many were operated by universities as laboratory schools for exploring new ways of learning and teaching. No one ever had much problem with that.
But the charter school idea has now been weaponized in the war on public education, and that cannot stand.
Jon, when a person is urging an end to school choice (see Diane’s comments earlier), which means an end to options for low income while more affluent families have them, I’d say that’s a great strategy to help continue the trend of more people leaving district schools for charters.
By the way, I have yet to hear anything from Diane critical of quasi private magnet schools that often use standardized tests to screen out students. The late US Senator Paul Wellstone tried hard to reduce federal funding for “public” schools with admissions tests. He was right
You are clearly taking her shorthand phrase out of context and without respect for all the other things she has consistently said and written.
My interpretation of that slogan would be something like the following.
Choices at one level of freedom are based on enabling or prerequisite choices being available at more basic levels of freedom.
A situation of Pseudo-Choice is created when you offer a collection of people a choice at a high level of freedom without having provided them all with the enabling choices at the supporting levels of freedom.
That is exactly what we are seeing in this ruse of School Choice.
I should add that being put in situations of Pseudo-Choice tends to make human beings extremely angry. Intensely angry. And they always eventually figure it out, however long it may seem to take.
So Watch Out For That …
I’d be interested in hearing what the various commentators here would see as an acceptable charter or magnet school system. And at the same time, a good explanation as to why there should be mainstream v. those charter or magnet schools. I’m reading a lot of visceral reactions one way or the other (mine included), but not a lot of specifics as to what works or doesn’t, or really a better definition of “choice” for that matter.
Why aren’t the successful charter and magnet schools used as a template for how to operate the mainstream schools? The charter of the school I went to was adopted in whole or in part by many of the private schools in Seattle, and was used similarly by several start-up private schools as the foundation of their charters, but the district didn’t use it and didn’t adopt any of the successful methods to the mainstream schools.
The district instead simply attempted to eliminate the school, and hasn’t promoted or fully supported any of the alternative schools except as places of last resort for “lesser” problem children. Isn’t that an example of the public schools historically attempting to limit success and choice?
A school that accepts public funds must operate consistently with democratic principles.
That is the criterion in a nutshell.
Of course there is much more to say about what exactly constitutes democratic principles. When I was in school everyone pretty much learned the logic of democracy by heart. I am constantly astounded that I even have to recite these principles in my daily discussions to people who have apparently never been schooled in them. Or maybe just choose to forget. Or maybe found themselves subjected to some form of media brainwashing that has erased these lessons from the slates of their minds.
Very sorry to hear that Seattle responded in that way to an outstanding school. This is the pattern in many places. Al Shanker wrote in the late 1980’s that teachers who tried to create new schools within the existing structure often were treated like “traitors or outlaws.” As one of those people in the Minneapolis, St. Paul area, I know what that felt like. He continued that if the teachers somehow succeeded in creating a new option within the district, they could look forward to “insecurity, obscurity, or outright hostility.” Our k-12 (district public) option, despite being evaluated by the US Dept of Ed as a “carefully evaluated, proven innovation” often experienced what Shanker described. So did many other teachers and options created in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
Part of the charter movement came from innovative public school teachers and administrators who tried to make changes in districts and experienced what Shanker predicted. District resistance described above by Lavrans helped produce the charter movement.
Since it’s obviously too later to copyright “Charter School” as a brand name, and even “K12” has been squatted on, well-meaning founders of the old style non-commercial public-accountable charter schools would be well-advised to think up a new descriptor for themselves and make it their legal intellectual property, by way of distinguishing their canon from the weaponized brand.
Few people had problems with the traditional model of charter schools. They addressed a need, they encouraged experimentation in a responsible way that didn’t treat children as cash cows for corporate coffers or as guinea pigs to be sacrificed at the end of the experiment. They were accountable to the public for the use of public funds. That means equal opportunity and protection under the law and separation of church and state among other things.
And for the sake of those who conveniently keep forgetting, “The Public” is a lot bigger population than “Parents of school-age children at the current time”.
But those days are gone. Charter schools are being used to supplant rather than supplement bona fide public schools. This is being done by cynical corporate con artists whose only goal is to replace universal free public education with a corporate-owned and market exchangeable commodity.
Pseudo-Choice —
Choices at one level of freedom are based on enabling or prerequisite choices being available at more basic levels of freedom.
A situation of Pseudo-Choice is created when you offer a collection of people a choice at a high level of freedom without giving all of them equal access to the enabling choices at the supporting levels of freedom.
It needs to be added that being put in situations of Pseudo-Choice tends to make human beings extremely angry. Intensely angry. And they always, eventually figure it out, however long it may seem to take.
So Watch Out For That …
No kids in school, then no more school tax for the homeowner. Why are retired people with no children paying school tax?
Why is school tax forever?
I have no kids and I never attended public schools, so get your school taxes off my house.
American’s do not own their homes, they rent it from the school board, and that makes them a nation of serfs to the school board.
That’s one argument I can’t agree with, Rich. The point of public education is that it is one of the few positive purposes of government. Your school benefited in any number of ways from the public education system. Any education received in America has benefited from the public education system.
More importantly, you not attending public school could just as easily be defined as you having not participated in the American paideia; one who hasn’t attended a school in the public education system can only know America by theory, not direct experience. The rest of one’s life must be spent learning what would have been learned there. No matter its faults and problems, that is where the country exists more than anywhere.
Americans mostly rent their homes from the bank, but the taxes to go the social goods and defense that is the purpose of government. To ask that those taxes (which have been there since the beginning of the country, unlike income tax which is a war tax carried on to relieve corporations and commerce from the burden that they were originally intended to carry) NOT be used for school is to remove government from one of the few roles it really should have. Take public education away and there would be no part of government that I support in any meaningful way. All other parts of government are parasitic- public education is the only service that has universally positive returns on investment.
Yes, we all know that here.
Now tell the other guys.
Well, Jon- I just did. But at the same time, it’s not really clear that you “all know that”.
I’m still bemused by the inability of some (many?) to discern between a “great” mission and “great” people; without that simple skill it is difficult to know what civic participation means.
I’m just saying that those of who argue the positive branch of the Public Good Appeal till we’re blue in the face sometimes weary of that and just for novelty resort to irony and reductio ad absurdum of the alternative. I was reading Rich as doing that. I could be wrong but I know what my own intentions would be if I were talking that way.
“But once the concept of private choice becomes dominant, then the sense of communal responsibility is dissolved. Each of us is then given permission to think of what is best for me, not what is best for we.”
“Earned income tax credit” (communal support for the poor), SNAP benefits (communal support for the poor and hungry), WIC benefits (communal support for women and infants) and Medicaid benefits (communal support for the poor and sick) to name just a few of the myriad communal support programs all have private choice as a dominant feature.
Shall the community tell the poor what to spend their unearned “earned income tax credit” upon? Shall the community tell the hungry what food they shall eat? Shall the community tell the new mothers which formula is best for their child? (Breast feeding is the best and should be the first choice) Shall the community tell the sick which doctor they can see?
“We” are poor decision makers for “Me”. Keep “We” out of my womb! Keep “we” out of my bedroom!
Poverty of material wealth does not invalidate the personhood of the individual and allow the community to impose It’s collective will.
People make piss poor choices all the time with the above listed community supported programs. Yet all are see as the communal response to poverty.
Vouchers will just allow people to make piss poor choices about education like they do with their diet, unearned welfare(other people’s money) and healthcare.
You may think that you are part of the “we” and that “we” will do what is right.
I doubt it.
It’s actually a nice and useful piece of info. I am satisfied that you simply shared this helpful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.
Public education can go straight to hell!!!!
I love public education!!