Failure of Education?
Would it seem a bit Chicken Little’ish to run around screaming, “The schools are failing. The schools are failing!” After all, we failed the Space Race- faulted to public education. The protests of the 1960’s cited the schools having little curricular relevance. A Nation at Risk, printed in 1983, gave our schools a failing grade. Now, No Child Left Behind stands claim to that 20-year pendulum swing. The question remains, can the American public education system ever survive the onslaught of attacks by policy makers and the privatization of public schools masked as a “school reform” movement?
It can’t be all that bad, or can it? After all, John Goodlad in his opening to A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future, wrote, “American schools are in trouble. In fact, the problems of schooling are of such crippling proportions that many schools may not survive.” No doubt that was the million dollar lead sentence, as the rest of his book provides a much more optimistic portrait of the American public school system.
Within several pages of that bleak introduction, he argues that even if the American public education system were to be dismantled, there would still be the need to educate our children. We would eventually need to reinvent public education. Why devote our energies to reform (a word which carries the connotation of tearing down and building anew), when school renewal should be the central focus? He uses the term “renew” to denote a fortification, or strengthening of the system.
What if we could tear it all down and start with a blank slate- tabula rasa? This is exactly what educators, parents, and policy makers have considered in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina. Call it the Noah’s flood of public education; the school systems were literally washed away in the deluge. Politicians, parents, entrepreneurs, and educators have envisioned a new future what was once considered the worst school system in the country.
Following in the footsteps of other economically deprived, urban blighted, academically failing, neglected American cities, the charter schools have come to rescue. Whereas the public schools are parched for funding, it appears that federal grants may pave the way for more charters to open in New Orleans. In fact, many of the first schools to reopen were private or charter schools. I wonder if they will continue to thrive after the public schools are rebuilt.
I have only observed the charter school “solution” in dialogues involving the problems of inner-city education. They neglect to mention the rising problem associated with rural poverty (as mentioned in Goodlad, and addressed by the National Writing Project’s Rural Network). Perhaps it is because rural poverty doesn’t have a strong image associated with this problem, as does the urban schools; nor would it be profitable to invest into the “charter competition” with communities that have small and declining student populations.
The effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita made waves with public education throughout the country. Our President, George W., proposed to set aside money to be used as a one-year-only school voucher the children and families that emigrated from NOLA. Opponents of the system fear that this one time gesture will set a national precedent for the voucher movement. At worst, accusers point their fingers at the government for pushing a political agenda in the wake of a national catastrophe. They argue that such a push not only violates the separation of church and state, but undermines our trust in public education.
Both the “reform” movement and public school advocates use the same argument to support their cause: equal educational opportunities for all. They state that the competition model will create intutional excellance. The “reform” movement of charter schools and vouchers rely upon the perception of public schools as failing. Charters argue that schools are overfunded and underperform. They don’t take into consideration the facts that the rising costs of education are associated with the cost of technology (an iniative started by Clinton), pay to adequately deal with a growing special education subgroup, and payment out of the school and taxpayers’ pockets to afford state mandated standardized tests. How ironic is it that standardized test scores are used to validate this failure.
However, both publicly funded charters and private schools are not held to the same state standards as the public schools. They can compete for student population (turn away “problem” students), are not required to service special education, and do not have to “compete” in statewide standardized tests. Accountability is a double-edged sword, I would like to see the charter and private schools held to the same standards as public education. How can charter and voucher-supplemented private schools provide equal educational opportunities when they are not on the same footing as public schools.
I personally believe that the competition model will further divide our schools, as Dewey believed, the cornerstone of our very Democracy. The competition model will deepen the divide between the haves and have-nots. After all, in competition there can only be one winner. Second place isn’t good enough. Rather, we should strive for the cooperation model. After all, other vital municipal agencies don’t work under competition. Imagine fire department or police force working under the competition model.
Rather than hastily blame educators, why not take into consideration the role of the general public as failing the schools. What other multi-million dollar operation puts amateurs at the helm of operations, other than public schools’ board of education. Top-heavy administrators and mismanaged budgets are all controlled through the general public via the B.O.E. One only needs to look towards Willingboro, NJ, located in our own backyard for an example of system-wide problems stemming from the board, and not the teachers themselves. After all, aren’t parents also responsible for the education of their children outside the institution? The answer? Not anymore. Both Goodlad and Brighouse note the declining role of parents in the education of their child. Schools are now expected to do it all (to which teachers may also add the role of “parenting” the students as well).
Though, as Goodlad pointed out, state politicians aren’t likely to place blame on their constituents. Though many politicians walk a fine line with the unions, who can argue with the platform campaign of educational improvement for all. That is the in the wording of the banner “No Child Left Behind”; semantically anyone in opposition would be willing to leave children behind. In the meantime, the Chicken Littles and Henny Pennies of the education world are running around screaming, “The schools are failing. The schools are failing!” Meanwhile Foxy Loxy is licking his lips for reform; there is privte money to be made through this public endeavor.
It can’t be all that bad, or can it? After all, John Goodlad in his opening to A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future, wrote, “American schools are in trouble. In fact, the problems of schooling are of such crippling proportions that many schools may not survive.” No doubt that was the million dollar lead sentence, as the rest of his book provides a much more optimistic portrait of the American public school system.
Within several pages of that bleak introduction, he argues that even if the American public education system were to be dismantled, there would still be the need to educate our children. We would eventually need to reinvent public education. Why devote our energies to reform (a word which carries the connotation of tearing down and building anew), when school renewal should be the central focus? He uses the term “renew” to denote a fortification, or strengthening of the system.
What if we could tear it all down and start with a blank slate- tabula rasa? This is exactly what educators, parents, and policy makers have considered in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina. Call it the Noah’s flood of public education; the school systems were literally washed away in the deluge. Politicians, parents, entrepreneurs, and educators have envisioned a new future what was once considered the worst school system in the country.
Following in the footsteps of other economically deprived, urban blighted, academically failing, neglected American cities, the charter schools have come to rescue. Whereas the public schools are parched for funding, it appears that federal grants may pave the way for more charters to open in New Orleans. In fact, many of the first schools to reopen were private or charter schools. I wonder if they will continue to thrive after the public schools are rebuilt.
I have only observed the charter school “solution” in dialogues involving the problems of inner-city education. They neglect to mention the rising problem associated with rural poverty (as mentioned in Goodlad, and addressed by the National Writing Project’s Rural Network). Perhaps it is because rural poverty doesn’t have a strong image associated with this problem, as does the urban schools; nor would it be profitable to invest into the “charter competition” with communities that have small and declining student populations.
The effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita made waves with public education throughout the country. Our President, George W., proposed to set aside money to be used as a one-year-only school voucher the children and families that emigrated from NOLA. Opponents of the system fear that this one time gesture will set a national precedent for the voucher movement. At worst, accusers point their fingers at the government for pushing a political agenda in the wake of a national catastrophe. They argue that such a push not only violates the separation of church and state, but undermines our trust in public education.
Both the “reform” movement and public school advocates use the same argument to support their cause: equal educational opportunities for all. They state that the competition model will create intutional excellance. The “reform” movement of charter schools and vouchers rely upon the perception of public schools as failing. Charters argue that schools are overfunded and underperform. They don’t take into consideration the facts that the rising costs of education are associated with the cost of technology (an iniative started by Clinton), pay to adequately deal with a growing special education subgroup, and payment out of the school and taxpayers’ pockets to afford state mandated standardized tests. How ironic is it that standardized test scores are used to validate this failure.
However, both publicly funded charters and private schools are not held to the same state standards as the public schools. They can compete for student population (turn away “problem” students), are not required to service special education, and do not have to “compete” in statewide standardized tests. Accountability is a double-edged sword, I would like to see the charter and private schools held to the same standards as public education. How can charter and voucher-supplemented private schools provide equal educational opportunities when they are not on the same footing as public schools.
I personally believe that the competition model will further divide our schools, as Dewey believed, the cornerstone of our very Democracy. The competition model will deepen the divide between the haves and have-nots. After all, in competition there can only be one winner. Second place isn’t good enough. Rather, we should strive for the cooperation model. After all, other vital municipal agencies don’t work under competition. Imagine fire department or police force working under the competition model.
Rather than hastily blame educators, why not take into consideration the role of the general public as failing the schools. What other multi-million dollar operation puts amateurs at the helm of operations, other than public schools’ board of education. Top-heavy administrators and mismanaged budgets are all controlled through the general public via the B.O.E. One only needs to look towards Willingboro, NJ, located in our own backyard for an example of system-wide problems stemming from the board, and not the teachers themselves. After all, aren’t parents also responsible for the education of their children outside the institution? The answer? Not anymore. Both Goodlad and Brighouse note the declining role of parents in the education of their child. Schools are now expected to do it all (to which teachers may also add the role of “parenting” the students as well).
Though, as Goodlad pointed out, state politicians aren’t likely to place blame on their constituents. Though many politicians walk a fine line with the unions, who can argue with the platform campaign of educational improvement for all. That is the in the wording of the banner “No Child Left Behind”; semantically anyone in opposition would be willing to leave children behind. In the meantime, the Chicken Littles and Henny Pennies of the education world are running around screaming, “The schools are failing. The schools are failing!” Meanwhile Foxy Loxy is licking his lips for reform; there is privte money to be made through this public endeavor.
Tags:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home