Why do we have public schools? Would we be better off, as certain reformers now think, if everyone had school choice and went to a charter or used a voucher to go to a private or religious school?
Do we need public schools?
I asked Carol Burris, principal of South Side High School in Rockville Center, New York, how she would answer these questions.
How would you answer?
This is what Carol wrote:
“When I think of the purpose of public schooling I always think of Dewey’s famous phrase that is stenciled into the entrance wall of Teacher’s College ““Schools are the fundamental method of social progress and reform” (Dewey,1897). I believe that these words are as true today as when they were first included in John Dewey’s “Pedagogic Creed” .
“There is a compact that exists between a community and its public school. It is a promise that the school will teach every child that passes through its doors—poor children, affluent children, children with disabilities and children who show great academic promise. The common public school is required to teach the easy to teach and the difficult to teach. The common public school is there for the student with strong parent advocates and for the child who is, for all practical purposes, alone.
“Most important of all, it is where such children meet and sit side by side in classrooms, on bleachers and in cafeterias. They learn from each other as surely as they learn from their teacher. That social learning is also what gives rise to the promise of social progress and social reform.
“I attended a private high school where I met children who looked like me, thought like me and prayed liked me. It was a good school, but I did not have as rich an experience as the public school students who attend my school. There were no students with substantial learning disabilities in my high school. It was a test-in school so no one struggled with academics. Only two of the students who attended were Black, and none of the students were poor. There was learning that I missed during my teenage years. I am glad we sent our daughters to public school.
“Charters and privates are not designed to serve all students—they are designed to serve students who are more like each other than not. Although there may be some diversity, those who are truly different either never apply, are never accepted or are counseled out. . One has to only look at New York City Schools, which are becoming more segregated and stratified by income than ever before, to understand the outcome of charters, selection policies and choice.
“We can take the easy road that leads to improvement for some kids at the expense of others, or the more difficult road that will improve education for all kids. Without vibrant, supported public schools, the second option does not have a chance.”
Carol
Perhaps we’ve learned something since Dewey wrote…that there is no such thing as the perfect school for all children.
If no options were allowed, would Deborah Meier have been allowed to create Central Park East (as an option)? Would teachers in Boston Public Schools have been allowed to create Pilot Schools? Would teachers and parents have been allowed to create the K-12 (district) St. Paul Open School?
If the answer is that there should be no public school options, than only the wealthy will have options. And if there are no public school options, educators will not be allowed to create distinctive schools (such as Central Park East, or the St. Paul Open School, or….)
Some refer to the creation of such options as destruction of the public schools…that’s what we heard from critics in 1971, when St. Paul agreed to create the Open School. Others see creation of options open to all as part of professionalism for educators, and democracy for families.
Very nice rhetoric, but it’s belied by the practice of the charter schools you advocate for, which create options for some, while draining resources for the many.
He’s back…same old same old. Priority: keep the corporate backers happy.
Funding for the Center has come from Cargill, Gates, Annenberg, Blandin, General Mills, St. Paul, St. Paul Companies, Peters, Minneapolis, TCF, Joyce, Bradley and Rockefeller Foundations, the U.S. Department of Education, the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota Initiative Funds, Best Buy, Pohlad, and Wallin Foundation.
I would say yes we do need them. I am still yearning to be able to describe why we do (which is one of the reasons I read this blog and other resources to learn all I can)–I come from a family of public school educators and supporters (principals too) and it is so engrained in who I am that I have trouble articulating why it is so vital—but my gut tells me it is. Maybe this is because I have spent time in developing nations and I have seen what a society that struggles with the basics looks like. I also wonder two things about the current swarms of debate and sometimes debacle surrounding school and school reform today: 1) is public school something our society sort of takes for granted because none of us has lived in a time without it–you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone, sort of thing, and 2) is it a little trendy (which I think it is) to pick on school teachers because of the desperation in our economy? In other words, nobody really cared much about the “piece of the pie” that teachers have carved out over the last fifty years (hardly getting rich, but if you are a good public school teacher who sticks with it you earn a good livelihood with benefits and retirement)–and because resources are stretched thin people have turned the education/school teacher stone over to see what they can get out of it. So in a way, all this debate has less to do with school and education and more to do with our place in history (what we consider a given) and our economy. (Also, of course, the changes in the work force, teaching as no longer just an “acceptable” job for women and certain changes that maybe do need to happen in teacher training, if education training programs have been relied on as cash churners to help support other University and College programs that bring in less money, as I have read they may be). Certain levels of resistance should wisely be analyzed, but to throw out the baby with the bath water (public education) is scary. I can’t say why, but I just know it is. I would love to be able to say why.
You said it perfectly. But there is one more thing. It has given us a common political culture. Public Schools have turned those huddled masses that came to our shores into Americans.
I agree with Mr. Nathan, that public schools must have the freedom to create learning environments in order to successfully execute the ” compact that exists between a community and its public schools”.
But, as Will Richardson said today on his blog-“To think that even our schools will remain in either spirit or structure 25 years from now simply because we’re too important, too valuable to be taken away by the “insurgents” is … “ridiculous.” The buildings may well remain, the requirement of “school” may still exist, but what happens inside those spaces will surely be very, very different.
Who, I wonder, effects that redesign?”
I am a former public school teacher and have always been a huge supporter of our Public School system. I also agree with the line “Charters and privates are not designed to serve all students—they are designed to serve students who are more like each other than not. ” While my children mostly attended conventional public schools, I did send my sons to two different Charter schools that fit their specific needs at that time. They were needs that the public schools here were not supporting. One of them was a middle school, and that son went back to a regular public high school after his Charter experience. I’ve also taken advantage of public “magnet schools”.
I will say that my experiences with Charter schools was when they were very very new.. before some learned the ways to take advantage of the “system”. I think it’s sad that has happened. I think that the Charter system has a place along side conventional public schools, if run correctly. They were exactly what my sons needed at the time and helped them succeed, when they were not succeeding in public school.
My biggest concern is with the push for “vouchers”. Any voucher program that I read about would not cover the full cost of most private schools. In that case.. the only people who would benefit would be the people who could already afford to send their kids to private schools..or were very close to being able to afford it. The kids that still couldn’t afford it, would all get left back in the public schools.
My children are grown and out of school, however I still believe that a well run, well staffed Public schools are important to the future of our country. I will always support the public school system.
I agree about vouchers being a bad idea. I don’t like a number attached to everyone’s head that travels with them like that–not a good idea on so many levels. I also have seen charters meet needs for students and families and agree that they started out right, but some people have hijacked the notion for personal, financial gain (or power or something). Well-stated! And thank you for your service to public schools.
Um, the ones who need public schools the most are charter schools–they need schools to take the hardest cases who charters schools reject. Having “no” public schools along side of charter schools is a contradiction in terms–if there weren’t any then charters would not be financially viable, and/or would not have any unfair advantage over public schools with which to entice parents.
Michelle Rhee, in her recent interview with Jon Stewart, made it clear that she “needs” public schools around…
Charters, like district public schools vary. There are charters that have mostly or all students with whom traditional schools have not succeeded. There are charters in wealthy suburbs, that like district public schools in those suburbs, have mostly or all upper income students.
Also, many people who work in charters would tell you that the scrutiny has dramatically increased over the last 20 years. In part, that is a good thing because some people have taken advantage of the freedom chartering offered to run lousy schools and/or to make very questionable uses of $.
However there also are innovative charters (as there are innovative district) schools that have suffered because of increased reliance in some states on standardized tests.
Care to give us an example of a charter that is “mostly or all students with whom traditional schools have not succeeded”? Wanna bet that they make use of the typical “cherry picking” approach of most charter schools–taking the highest-performing students within a low-performing group?
You see, research funded by Gates & Walton tells us that charters are successful only insofar as they get more money and deal with fewer problem students. Sure, it’s possible that some charters don’t “get it” yet, but the forces of the market will ensure that they will.
Charter schools don’t innovate, they segregate.
Joan, there are many, many examples, but I will give you a few:
City Academy, founded and serving students who have dropped out or been pushed out of traditional schools (first charter to open in the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Academy_High_School
High School for Recording Arts – serves a similar population as City Academy – students produce You-Tube and other videos that have won awards and resulted in contracts from government and companies to produce You-Tube Videos on topics such as the importance of staying in school, wearing seat belts, taking challenging courses in high school.
http://www.hsra.org/
Higher Ground Academy, founded by former Mn Commissioner of Human Rights, first African American to be elected to St. Paul City Council
http://www.minnpost.com/learning-curve/2013/01/culture-conscious-higher-ground-academy-serves-largely-east-african-student-b
“It is a promise that the school will teach every child that passes through its doors—poor children, affluent children, children with disabilities and children who show great academic promise.”
John Dewey was writing in 1897, you say? So he forgot to add, “but not Catholics, because they read the wrong version of the Bible, and certainly not black people.”
Why would anyone today so readily buy a completely romantic idea of what public schools were actually like in the 1890s?
I don’t know, but I think those words were written in 2013, not 1897.
Ah, the multiple quotation marks threw me off. Looks like Dewey said just this: “Schools are the fundamental method of social progress and reform.”
Sure, Dewey, as long as the only people in your zone of concern are white Protestants.
So because Dewey was blinded by the prejudices of his day, we should throw out everything he wrote? Do you feel the same way about the Constitution?
Dewey was right. Without public schools and a commitment to universal education, our society would show no progress. We would still have legally sanctioned racial segregation, children with disabilities would be excluded from school, and no one would be obliged to educate non-English speaking students.
As many people have pointed out, there is a difference between rhetoric and reality. While I like many of John Dewey’s ideas, the school he founded was and is an extremely elite private school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Chicago_Laboratory_Schools
“Do you feel the same way about the Constitution?”
I can think of a few parts we should throw out.
We are going to find a hard time locating anyone whose ideas we can admire if they all have to pass a morality test. I was going to say based on current standards, but those seem to be “in flux” right now. Frequently, individuals who may be considered deeply flawed say something that speaks to what we know or feel is right and true.
Diane, I love the answer Carol Burris wrote. There are two more pragmatic issues here in Dallas that detract from such lofty goals. First is the fragmentation of our communities due to the charter schools that are rapidly growing while almost nobody is watching their achievement scores and student attrition rates. Second is a problem Dallas has had for 40+ years, middle schools.
The research is growing (http://schoolarchiveproject.blogspot.com/2012/02/separate-middle-schools-vs-k-8.html ) showing the damage from the fragmentation of the educational process with middle schools. With K-8 schools re-established in neighborhoods, and all the attention of a neighborhood focused for longer periods of time on this one institution, we will have student achievement improve. Finland follows such a model.
We must focus in each neighborhood on making our local k-8 the best. Walking to school is still the best thing for a community to be able to do.
We can look at this from a more practical point of view. What I am about to say is logical, I don’t have any facts to back it up. Years ago each state had their own rules and regulations when it came to charter schools and these rules and regulations were meant to protect the children and to make sure that these charter schools were going to make sure that each child was going to be educated in a healthy and curriculum rich environment. Many states only allowed a few charter schools every year. Today when you have one district in a state of many closing 5 to 10 public schools at a time and reopening as charter schools the oversight (which most of us now is limited at best) becomes less and less. The result is charter schools like the one in Florida we read about yesterday.
I bet when TFA first started they had very rigorous back ground checks they did on each one of their applicants, but when you have a demand for more and more TFA’rs chances are less time is spent on each individual applicant. Now I am not saying that anyone in TFA would hurt a child, or do anything wrong or ever will. What I am saying is every year there is more of a chance that someone can get by who shouldn’t. I am also sure that TFA would say that they are very careful about who they let in, and I am sure they are. I am just saying that the ability to be more careful is less and less. Again this is just logical to me, and something that we should be aware of.
Carol, as always, is spot on with her viewpoints.
May I also add….Public schools are what makes a community, a community. Public schools are places of celebration, places of democracy, places of teamwork. places where a community comes together as one. Public schools provide support during crisis or difficulty, reminding a family, an individual, a neighborhood, they are not alone. Public schools educate, inspire and give opportunity and dreams to all students. Public schools enrich by diversity, instill humanity in a sometimes valueless world, and provide cohesiveness by building bridges, rather than erecting walls. Public schools are teachers, staff, parents students, and citizens, who believe in each other and the important work of social and intellectual progress.
Carol makes many critically important points and charters should, if all were to go well, disappear because the mainline public schools would be places where all could get the education they need for understanding how to take advantage of the promise of “life, liberty” and the opportunity to “pursue happiness” in a world governed by the people and for the people. What gets missed in some conversations related to advocacy for public schools is the fact that many have found it impossible to do what they have good reason to understand is necessary for schools to provide opportunity to indulge in responsible acts of freedom and to become a truly free citizen of the promised free society. The Declaration proclaims that this nation is one that became a nation to insure respect for the opinions of the individuals comprising the citizenry and it is these citizens, who, with their respectable opinions being met with proper respect will move the nation ever closer to becoming the “perfect union.” How close do schools as they exist now, governed by those who currently govern them, come to being incubators of intelligence and values that stand in the way of usurpation of the people’s power? That is the question that needs to be asked for, no matter what it is that schools claim to be their goals, the essential outcome must be ability of the people to shape societal goals within the context of a body of law conceived to maximize freedom while insuring that there is a society in which freedom can be exercised by all. Experimental schools, schools that are models for other schools, schools that work to give students the opportunity to understand the nature of life well lived in a democratic society and to attain the skills and knowledge and dispositions that would allow them to work with their fellows to preserve and improve such a society, are essential, I would say, because the schools that exist at this point in history are not yet the schools a free and democratic society needs. Public schools are not the schools they need to be and this is not the fault of good teachers but it is the fault of those who currently set the rules and the goals and those rules and those goals are rarely in the interest of people. Those who wish to reform schools must think of basic principles and the only sound principles for schools in a democratic society are those that comport with the democratic imperative and aid students in growing toward ever more able thinkers and decision makers. Show me the schools, charter or private or public and I will offer them all the support I can muster.
Dewey’s quote about social progress and reform is fine and of value, but at the same time dangerous, as we are seeing today. It all depends how one defines progress and reform, or should I say that it all depends whose definition rules the day. After reading Diane’s book “Left Back” I see Dewey in a little bit different light….not to mention Theordore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson (from a different book).
““Schools are the fundamental method of social progress and reform” (Dewey,1897).
This in a nutshell explains why charter schools are a beg push by the marketing and private sector. They do not want educated children who are privy to “social progress and reform.”
Or maybe they don’t want someone deciding what ‘social progress and reform’ means for their children. I want my children to learn to play with other children and learn academics. Just because many children don’t get character education at home doesn’t mean my children need to sit through indoctrination.
What “indoctrination” goes on in the public schools to which you object?
Over the last three decades of public school teaching, I have drilled down to the center of my heart and soul to identify why I continue to teach in a public school. Anyone who has
successfully “toughed-out” several years of teaching and survived, has been able to take enormous criticism, some of it valid and some of it unfair. Experienced teachers can take the “hit” and, in the next second, walk into a classroom and “rock” the instruction. I teach because I know that I have the ability to make an important connection with students and improve their lives.
I understand now why the “reformers” are going after experienced successful educators. Yes, it is partly because our salaries are “larger”, relatively speaking, but, more importantly, we have something that can’t be stolen, packaged, bought or sold; Teaching Instinct. This instinct is honed through many years of living with the joys and hardships of teaching. We simply know on a gut-level when a new reform strategy will work and when it will not. We are not impressed with Ivy League degrees, edu-speak, glitzy data charts, and standardized test results. We listen to speakers at professional development sessions, look past their suits and hairstyles, and know in an instant if they are genuine and have something valuable to offer and we thank them when they do. We can assist new teachers effectively and help influence their teaching values and practices, by leading directly and by example. We have, at times for the sake of our students and colleagues, asked the hard questions which have, at times, embarrassed and exposed “reformers”, school board members, and administrators whose motives were not in our students’ best interest. We know that technology can be a useful instructional tool when used in a classroom full of students under the guidance of a real-live teacher in real-time. We show students and parents of means and those of little means the same respect.
Yes, public school teachers teach ALL students and it is my honor and privilege to be a part of this profession. Teaching and learning is often a reciprocal experience and I have learned and continue to learn so much from my students, parents and fellow teachers. The importance of the local public school to its community is immeasurable.
Examine closely those who would marginalize and try to remove successful experienced teachers from public schools. If the intentions of reformers, administrators, corporate sponsors, etc., are honorable, if they truly put students first, they should not feel threatened by or show anger toward those with teaching instincts.
I admire your post. Very well said. I have rarely, if ever, seen the “reformers” even engage publicly with experienced teachers nor have they dealt with us face to face and answered questions in a live open televised or recorded debate. Not the union, not some handpicked stooge who once temp-taught (Rheeject)…an actual front line worker who has spent their professional life in the classroom seeing and hearing children. Has that ever happened? Or did I miss it?
“One has to only look at New York City Schools, which are becoming more segregated and stratified by income than ever before, to understand the outcome of charters, selection policies and choice.”
Let’s be fair, clear, and honest here: New York City’s public schools, and (especially) public schools in its metropolitan area, were already hugely and intractably segregated by race and class long before 1998.
Carol, since you believe strongly in traditional district schools and since you (laudably) see segregation as a stain on democracy, how about convincing the taxpayers in your relatively fortunate district to offer several hundred K-12 scholarships to kids from ‘at risk’ districts, including busing, wrap-around services, and the like? That would be a constructive approach, as opposed to discouraging choice for people who don’t have the means to move to places where there are great district schools, or who wouldn’t be welcome if they did have the means.
Reblogged this on MI Tspelczequer and commented:
From Diane Ravitch’s Blog, a principal in New York answers this fundamental question. Please read and share.
Susan Awbrey & David Scott • Educating Critical Thinkers for a Democratic Society
Carol,
Really. That prog propaganda is so tired.
Whenever you see the word vibrant you can bet there is a cultural marxist behind it. Why should we beleive that Dewey’s ideas and mumbo jumbo have been any kind of success? Dumping years of money into hairbrain smoke and mirror schemes has been a disaster. While it may feel like a success to one indoctrinated into the anti-individualist scheme, the real world is questioning your fake reality, and misleading words.
The intended cultural harm intended by Dewey, and clearly evidenced in his writings, and his cohorts has been successful, so you are right there in your own newspeak orwellian way, but otherwise, vox populi are not buing it.
Have you ever read anything written by John Dewey? He is more attuned to individualism than any of the harebrained schemes now imposed by DC.
You have to understand, Diane, that people who view corporations as persons and worship corporate CEOs as culture heroes are somewhat confused on the issue of individualism.
This question, and its discussion, need to be embedded in communities throughout America. One school district in NC is using our recent book, “Preserving the Public in Public Schools,” to facilitate just such a conversation, bringing parents, students, educators, business owners, and other community representatives together to create a community-wide vision plan for their district.
There certainly is no perfect fit for all students. It would be laughable to say so, but that is the problem with public education; it does not cater to the specific needs of students. I will not say that it is possible for the public education systems in the U.S. to accomplish this completely (there are millions of students), but I propose we attempt to not organize our students by grade level but by readiness. We have done this in a way (ie. AP classes, Honors classes) but up until 9th grade, students are guided like a herd of cattle.
Also, I attend a Charter school in downtown Chicago. I LOVE it! I have attended CPS (public) schools most of my educational career and have found charter school the better of the two BY FAR. The teacher are the most dedicated, hardworking, caring people you will ever find in a school. The student body is EXTREMELY diverse, and we are outperforming our public school counterparts in every way. Our school accepts anyone that applies (and turns to the lottery if the demand is higher than expected). We are not an exception. There are 12 schools in the Noble network of charter schools that are all doing the exact same thing. Charter schools are great in theory, but the application becomes tricky. I would venture to say that we have discovered a very good template for education.
Jake,
Why is it important or necessary for charter schools to boast that they are better than public schools? I don’t know if your boast is true, but boasting is bad manners. Didn’t your parents teach you that pride goeth before a fall?
Every body now that the public school is so important within the society because all the people were not same about their life some of the people were have doesn,t have enough money that can brough full of their basic needs and even pay the school fees how can that child get a knowledge that he/she get bright future his/her life if there is no public school.