There was a time when almost everyone lauded the American idea of common schooling.
The ideal of equal educational opportunity was far from realized yet widely shared.
It was a goal, an ideal, a vision by which we measured our efforts.
It was a standard we strived to meet.
Urban districts had a small number of selective admission schools, but some urban districts had none at all.
I know. I went to the Houston public schools, and there were no magnets, no selective schools.
There were neighborhood public schools.
Now, after a generation or more of reforms, magnets and selective admission schools are commonplace, not common school education.
And the urban elites are pushing the stratification of education as hard as they know how.
This story from Philadelphia is almost routine: a group of wealthy business leaders are putting millions into specialized schools, one of which is the school that was featured in the documentary about West Philadelphia High School on PBS.
As this reform movement reaches its goals, the degree of separation of students by class will be extreme.
Charter schools represent the latest phase of this movement, facilitating its growth and the addition of new revenues to class segregation.
Has our society given up on common school education?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The idea of a common school is laudable but our common schools have become testing machines that are costly and boring to the kids and adults who labor in them.
So the state increases regulation and strangulation of the common schools to drive people away from them and into deregulated schools that have selection mechanisms.
From a theoretical perspective, I can think of some plausible explanations for the change in elite support for public education. The first is of course that education represents an untapped market – something you and others have already noted.
But the second has to do with changes in economics. During the industrial revolution the only way to have sufficient human capital was to educate your national labor force – there really was a relationship between worker education and the economic well-being of the affluent. Now with globalization a wealthy person’s customers and labor force are all over the planet, so he has much less interest in helping out his fellow citizen. I think at that point positional considerations tend to kick in as well – educating the children of lower and middle-income families only creates more rivals for upper-class kids, and bids up the price of personal services.
In short, the economic elite may not have any incentive to support mass education anymore, and could even have some reasons to oppose it.
I’ve been tinkering with this idea for a while now, but haven’t gotten the opportunity to really model it yet.
Have we then not returned to issues of Child Labor in the United States?
Consider this definition from Wikipedia: Child labour refers to the employment of children in any work that deprives children of their childhood, interferes with their ability to attend regular school, and that is mentally, physically, socially or morally dangerous and harmful.
Let’s break it down:
Employment: Technically, the only part of this statement that is arguable. However, even at young ages, schools are asking children to fill out mission statements and refer to them not as students, but as stake holders. If ed reformers want to treat schools as business, then why also avoid calling attendance what it is – employment.
Work that deprives them of childhood: The most telling comment I hear from parents, “What happened to kindergarten?” States have developed curriculum and standards for pre-school. A recent article stated career readiness testing for kindergartners. The new buzz word of ed reformers for school work, even in preschool is rigorous. Childhood should not be rigorous, even at school.
Interferes with their ability to attend regular school: What most of would think of as “regular school” has disappeared, being replaced by the drudgery termed, test prep factories. School should be about exploration, curiosity, the love of learning. It is not anymore.
Mentally, physically, socially, or morally dangerous or harmful: Look at the surveys of students who now say, “I hate school”. We’ve sacrificed p.e., art, music, even science and social studies. In the most egregious of systems, recess is gone as well.
We have returned to a new and warped for of child labor in the United States. It’s called school.
I would not consider wikipedia a valid reference. Webster’s or OED and you can make your point.
Why do you consider OED and Webster’s as authoritative and not Wiki? What is the difference between the “authorities” and Wiki?
To me, this is really a continuation of what I saw as a teacher in the seventies. At that time, there was an over representation in what was called EMH (Educable Mentally Handicapped) classrooms of minority children. In all reality it was a catch all that included children with behavioral problems, mental problems, social issues, placed in there due to last name, history of truancy, mild mental retardation and a wide variety of other reasons. This was based on a biased intelligent test. Often times I was at odds with the school psychologist who told me I did not know what normal was when I tried to explain that I felt some of these children did not belong in my classroom. The resources were minimal since the belief was that these children could not learn so why waste money on them. My master’s thesis examined this and even Harvard did a study and found the same to be true. So in my mind this is just a new phase in this endeavor. It is almost as if some people do not want to see all children have a quality education
.
The “elite” — the rich — have never attended regular public schools; going back at least 100 years, these folks have always sent their children to private schools, often to boarding schools.
The group that’s in play is not the rich but the middle class. Traditionally, the middle class sent their children to the local public schools (or, in some cases, the local Catholic schools).
In the suburbs, the middle class still sends their children to the local public schools and, in general, is happy with the schools.
The problem is the inner-city (and some close-in economically-mixed suburbs). In the inner-city, the middle class is not happy with the local public schools. This middle-class unhappiness with the inner-city public schools is the main force driving school reform. (Businesses hoping to profit from “corporate” school reform and financially-pressed local officials have jumped on the school reform bandwagon, but if the middle-class inner-city parents were happy with their local public schools, school reform would be at most a minor issue.)
Why are the middle-class inner-city parents unhappy with their local inner-city public schools? Answer this question and we’ll be a long way towards effective school reform.
Based on media reports and blog posts (or more precisely, the absence of media reports and blog posts), few middle-class inner-city parents are particularly unhappy with the quality of the teachers in their local public schools. Accordingly, the corporate school reform emphasis on teacher quality — i.e., high-stakes testing/teacher evaluation/eliminating tenure — is completely misplaced.
Based on numerous conversations with middle-class inner-city parents and blog posts, it seems that middle-class inner-city parents are mostly unhappy with what they perceive as endemic student misbehavior and/or negative peer influence in the inner-city schools. The popularity of charter schools — even charter schools with inexperienced/uncredentialed teachers using conventional instruction programs in mediocre facilities — is strong evidence that parents are mostly concerned with student behavior/attitude. The charters — because they enroll only students whose parents are sufficiently concerned/functional to complete the application process and because they can easily return disruptive/unmotivated students to the neighborhood public schools — offer middle-class inner-city parents (and working-class/lower-class parents who are concerned about their children’s education) the opportunity to attend a school where virtually all of the students behave reasonably well.
If we want to preserve our inner-city public schools as the common educational experience they have been and should be, we must focus school reform on improving student behavior in those schools.
The inner-city charters are also helping to collapse inner-city Catholic schools by offering what is billed as a similar environment but is free.
And one other point, the charters are now moving–or trying to move–into suburbs and small towns, where the students are easier to educate and the tuition reimbursement is attractive.
I think this is exactly right – the reason most middle class parents seem to seek other schools are the other students having what they perceive as a negative influence on their kids.
If your child is the only kid who does the reading assignment, for example, that makes your job much tougher as a parent. If the other kids tease yours because he wears the wrong clothes or likes the wrong things, that is pretty heart-rending. If two kids in your child’s classroom take up all the teacher’s time, you’re going to be unhappy. (And the removal of administrators and supplemental teachers and aides for budget reasons makes this more and more likely.)
No school reforms are addressing this.
“I think this is exactly right – the reason most middle class parents seem to seek other schools are the other students having what they perceive as a negative influence on their kids.”
This is what could be called “social segregation.”
A parent in this situation justifies this by saying, “My kids are not getting what I want them to get in school because of those other people’s kids. Therefore, I do not want my kids to associate with them. Those ‘other’ kids are bringing my kids down.”
Unfortunately, running from “those other people’s kids” is not going to help the community-at-large since “those other people’s kids” grow up to be members of the same society their kids are in unless their children somehow miraculously can move out of the community’s influence as adults. It’s a sticky wicket because all people’s behaviors do affect everyone else in society on both sides of this issue.
Somewhere along the way, we’ve lost our commitment to each other and, in turn, we’ve lost our commitment to society. How do we fix this? Some say to put your efforts into helping the communities improve for ALL citizens instead of spending your resources on abandoning “certain people” in the communities.
How much does a community influence its schools?
A good friend of mine teaches high school English in an at-risk community where many students often come to school hungry or sick. Many live in low-income housing projects.
One year, the teachers were required to purchase their own reams of paper for their classrooms since there was no money left in the district budget to pay for paper. He unfortunately had to “break the news” to his students that any use of paper in the classroom was going to be under strict control because he was paying for it himself.
This solicited a brief explanation about why: The district ran out of paper. The students asked why the district just didn’t buy more. Knowing that answering this in any kind of detail could have paved the way to a political discussion that had no place in an English class, my friend just stated that they needed the money to buy other things for the school.
The kids understood and many seemed to sympathize with the situation. During the brief discussion, some students showed him their fancy “kicks.” They were running around in sneakers that cost upwards of $250.
Now I’m thinking, “How is it possible that in such a poor community with no funds left to even provide paper to staff members and students, kids are wearing shoes that cost more than what the average adult makes in that community?” Is it possible that these kids’ parents work to put fancy shoes on their children’s feet? It is possible, yes.
Being very naive at the time, I proceeded to protest the value system in that community: “What are these kids’ families teaching them about responsibility? Why are they spoiling them when there are so many who have nothing to eat? Blah, blah, blah…”
He explained to me that he often feels helpless to motivate these students to do their work. They ask him why they should listen to him about getting an education to make something of themselves when they know a person in their community can already make more in one night than he could make in two months at his teaching job. Tough to argue with that one, isn’t it? And who would begrudge them of these methods of “cash flow” when they have already experienced “success?”
LG stated: “Knowing that answering this in any kind of detail could have paved the way to a political discussion that had no place in an English class”
Disagree that the discussion “had no place in an English class”. That’s just one meme to keep the rabble (teachers) under “control”.
Yep, I’ve been written up for being too “political” in my Spanish class more than once. But I refuse to not answer a student’s question. I try to have the discussion last as short as possible but teaching and learning sometimes is more than just the curriculum. And now I always tie it into something in the curriculum, even if it is a “sly” reference.
For instance the state foreign language standards say something to the effect “students should compare and contrast the target language culture practices and norms with their own culture”. Well we read about the fact that Costa Rica has free public health insurance for all, even foreigners. A student asked how could that be, a tiny Central American “third” world country providing free health care for all. First I challenged his/her assumption about a “third world” country. Then I stated that Costa Rica has no armed forces so that what they save on that can go to providing social services. Well they were astonished that a country wouldn’t have armed forces and we discussed that a little. And then I said that they also don’t have insurance companies that skim 35% of our health care insurance costs for administrative costs and profits so that there is a savings there.
Well just so happens one of the students family has an insurance business and his/her father was on the school board. To make a long story short I got called into the principals office to have a discussion about being “too political”. Needless to say I pointed out how the discussion related to the state standard and that board policy was not being followed as if someone had a complaint about what was going on they are supposed to go to the teacher first, the principal second the superintendent third, etc. . . . Well the board member brought my class discussion up in a closed “personnel” session without following board procedures. Still got written up, though. Demanded that they remove the letter from my file. Didn’t happen of course. ¡Así es la vida!
Duane, I completely agree with you that teaching and learning sometimes is more than just the curriculum. Students do indeed deserve answers to their questions, and giving them these answers should not be an issue for an educator. However, we are also representatives of the school district as employees–we have to tread very lightly when making statements that could be construed as having bias.
I once innocently (or so I thought) openly thanked the school board for supporting instrumental music “when the program was not state-mandated,” and received a slap-on-the-wrist for “going there” at a public forum since it tied the hands of the board of ed. to cut the program if necessary without parental complaint. So by doing what I thought was a good thing, pointing out the good and the truthful, I got in trouble for speaking. They wanted me to “stick to music” and not policy.
I’m a parent of children in a Pittsburgh Public magnet elementary school. This school attracts families from all over the district because of its reputation for great teachers, low turn-over, and ability to prepare children for secondary school. In 2008 The Environmental Charter School (ECS) opened nearby and since then our school has lost many of our families. Academically, ECS has not out performed our school.
So, why do they have a waiting list? I have friends that left our school reporting that the ECS curriculum is not more rigorous and the teachers are not any better.
I ask, why then did you choose to leave. The answer is “safety”. I’ll decode that for everyone. Our school is over 60% black compared to ECS which is 60% white.
Families with children that are well behaved and ready to learn now have an option for their children that they never needed in the first place. Their children will most likely have the same outcomes from either school. My friends admit that. But, at ECS, they don’t have the burden of worrying about the potential of negative peer influence, as
you stated.
I agree with you that school reform should be focused elsewhere. I would like to suggest that “improving student behavior” simplifies the issue though. This leads, I think, to placing blame on kids and parents.
I’ve had conversations with middle income parents that wish we could put ” all the bad kids” in the same room. I’ve had similar conversations with low income parents that wish we could put ” all the kids with special needs” in the same room. The blame game.
Here is the reality. When kids start kindergarten and they are not ready to learn ( for whatever reason) they are immediately at a disadvantage that will follow them through the rest of their school years. If the reason happens to be “behavior” or the lack of necessary interpersonal skills, the child is immediately labeled “bad” and most likely pushed out, held back, and considered less able to achieve.
Inner- city urban schools have horrible discipline policies that do nothing to improve behavior. Education reformers must value the intentional teaching and learning of interpersonal and social skills so all kids can be ready to learn. Discipline policies must be changed.
Only then will families feel safe enough to keep their kids in my public school.
Actually they are only opposed if they can’t take it over and make a profit.
Read this letter in reference to Bridgeport, CT and the Vallas roadshow takeover.
Excerpt and full link below as written by a resident of Bridgeport and retired Superior Court judge, Carmen Lopez.
This is must read on how to set up a faux reform agency, which really exists to prop up the carpet bagging faux reformer.
Excel Bridgeport recently celebrated its one-year anniversary. It wants to head the parade of education reformers and consign established organizations to a subordinate role.
Anyone following the “reform efforts” currently ravaging the Bridgeport school district must have noticed the ubiquitous presence of Excel Bridgeport staff at government meetings. The executive director spoke before the City Council regarding charter revision. She urged the City Council to approve the mayor’s proposal for an appointed board of education rather than one elected by the people.
Wrap up:
Shakespeare said that the entire world is a stage and all that glitters is not gold.
Watch carefully, as the masks are removed in the next act of the Excel production!
http://www.ctpost.com/opinion/article/Removing-the-mask-from-Bridgeport-education-3717349.php
I wish the parents would get together and go on strike!! Keep the kids home until things change – it would take only one community to show the country how it’s done.
“I wish the parents would get together and go on strike!”
It’s called the National Opt Out of standardized testing. Check it out at: http: //unitedoptout. com/ . Take out the spacing and it should work. I’m posting it this way because, yesterday, in response to Abelardo and LInda1, if I remember correctly, I tried numerous times to post the url and I think that this blog thought that it was spam and it would not post my postings and returned me back up to the top of the particular blog-I attempted on a couple of different ones. Hopefully this one will post.
At some point, I could see the states getting strangled so much with education funding reductions they throw up their hands and say “either send your child to boarding school or home school them yourself”. I wonder what our nation’s parents are going to do then.
Could’t be done here in the Show Me State as the state constitution mandates a “free and appropriate” education for all students “up to the age of 21”.
“As this reform movement reaches its goals, the degree of separation of students by class will be extreme.”
Unfortunately socio-economic separation by class is already extreme. Clayton (MO) school district, one of the wealthiest in the state spends over $18,500 per student whereas as my rural considered to be poor district spends around $7,950 per student with the resulting 1/11 and 1/21 student/teacher ratios respectively. But thanks for bringing up the “class” issue. To bad you (and I) have “class envy” issues-ha ha!!
I don’t think society has given up on common school education, I think society has outgrown what it means to be common and the education system has gone down a path of what’s good for a profit and has forgotten itself what it means to be common.
Common didn’t mean low, as in “he’s so common”
It referred to “the common good” or “the commons”
What makes a ‘public” Charter School “public?
If their teachers and administrators don’t meet a states certification requirements, how can they be “public” and given taxpayer money?
( I hope someone can explain this…I’m really flummoxed.) Thanks.