In another great post, Bruce Baker explains the smokescreens that reformers use to divert attention from resource inequality.
One smokescreen is choice. The idea is that liberty should replace equality. But says Baker, choice is highly inequitable. “But these arguments are merely a diversion, sidestepping whether, when applied in practice, adequate alternatives are equitably distributed.
“One problem with this assertion is that variation in resources across private providers, as well as across charter schools tends to be even greater than variation across traditional public schools (Baker, 2009, Baker, Libby & Wiley, 2012). Further, higher and lower quality private and charter schools are not equitable distributed geographically and broadly available to all. At the extreme, in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina where traditional district schools were largely wiped out, and where choice based solutions were imposed during the recovery, entire sections of the city were left without secondary level options and provided a sparse few elementary and middle level options (Buras, 2011).
“Baker, Libby and Wiley show that in New York City, charter expansion has yielded vastly inequitable choices. Table 1 shows the demographics, spending and class sizes of New York City charter schools, by their network affiliation, compared to district schools. Most New York City charter school networks serve far fewer children qualifying for free lunch (<130% poverty level), far fewer English language learners and far fewer children with disabilities than same grade level schools in the same borough of the city. These patterns of student sorting induce inequities across schools. But, these schools also have widely varied access to financial resources despite being equitably funded by the city. Some charter networks are able to outspend demographically similar district schools by over $5,000 per pupil, and to provide class sizes that are 4 to 6 (or more) students smaller.”
Another is the claim that we are spending enough or spend too much.
As Baker writes, “Finally, an argument that reoccurs with some consistency in debates over the adequacy of education funding is that there exists little or no proof that adding more money would likely have any measurable positive effects. This argument hinges on the oft repeated (and as frequently refuted phrase that there exists “no systematic relationship between funding and outcomes.” This argument fails to excuse the facial inequity of permitting some children attending some schools to have twice or more, the resources of others, especially where, as in New York State, higher need children are the ones with systematically fewer resources.”
Why are deformers so deceptive?
There seems to be something about the commercialization of education that inexorably leads to deception and disinformation.
The Rheeformers, the libertarians and other assorted right wingers say that money doesn’t matter, too much money is being thrown at the schools as it is, more money will not solve the problem, blah, blah, blah. And yet the elite private schools throw bales of money at their schools ($30,000 tuition plus all kinds of private donations and fund raisers) and they have small class sizes (12 to 14 pupils). Long story short, the school reformers really hate democracy, public services and public schools.
How well I remember George Bush senior setting the direction for decades of policy by saying “You can’t solve the education problem by throwing money at it.”
Well, we seem to have no problem throwing money at prisons in this country. As of year-end 2011, 6.9777 million U.S. adults were “under correctional supervision,” that is, on probation, on parole, in jail, or in prison. That’s about 2.9% of the U.S. population. It’s the highest rate in the world. As of 2010, according to a Pew report, average cost of incarceration per inmate in state systems was $47,421 in California, $50,262 in Connecticut, $38,268 in Illinois, $38,383 in Maryland, $41,364 in Minnesota, $54,865 in New Jersey, $60,076 in New York. . . . You get the picture.
We can pay on the front end to create compensatory environments for the children of the poorest in our society, or we can pay and pay and pay on the back end.
We have to face the fact that our system is failing the children of the rural and inner city poor and that MAGICAL nostrums like standardized tests aren’t going to fix that (but, in fact, will make things much, much worse). The savage inequalities that Kozol wrote about decades ago are back with a vengeance, and until we address the poverty of kids’ communities and put a great deal of money, much more than we are now spending, into creating COMPENSATORY ENVIRONMENTS, we’re not going to make progress. Only an idiot thinks that one can make real change in the life of a child with meth- or crack-addicted parents simply by testing him or her more.
Every child deserves a shot at a decent life. That is the promise of our Declaration of Independence. For millions of American kids, that promise is a cruel joke, but every one of those kids, every one, matters.
Are there any potential candidates for the 2016 Presidential election who are willing to deal with poverty as a means of solving problems in education?
Hillary stated in 2008 debate that NCLB should just be thrown out on its lack of merit rather than for the Libertarian view of dismantling Dept. Of Ed. for ideological reasons. Perry wanted to also dismantle but couldn’t really remember why… Poverty doesn’t seem to bother Perry or Paul. Hillary is looking like best hope right now.