There are two local school districts considering charter schools and there have been discussions about instituting a voucher system. Recently a local newspaper published a column written by one founders of one of the proposed charters and a letter written to the editor by a parent. Both articles are riddled with misinformation.
There are many innovative public schools all around the country. I personally have had the good fortune to have taught in such schools and have worked with many progressive educators. As nice as independent schools are, and I have visited many, they cannot afford to serve the poor to more than a token extent, and so are therefore, elitist. And I do not agree that you should be free to educate students however you want. I believe in public responsibility, and how you educate children matters to society as a whole not just to you or the child. That's where I align myself with thinkers like John Dewey; there is a balance in a democratic society between the freedom of the individual and responsibility to society. Where to draw the line is complex, but it needs to exists. Drawing that line is part of the democratic process.
The rhetoric behind vouchers is that if everyone had vouchers parents could select the best school for their child instead of being forced to go to "government schools".
Where does such logic fall apart? There are two main logistical reasons it is really a false promise. One is economic and the other is the question of who gets to choose.
The private schools that the elite send their children to cost tens of thousands of dollars a year to attend. I looked up a few private schools and tuition ranged from $20,000 to well over $30,000, more than many private colleges. And the actual amount they spend per pupil is well over the tuition since they raise lots of extra money from alumni. They also tend to pay their non-unionized teachers significantly less than public schools.
Since at best the voucher proposals I have seen only pay a small fraction of that, these vouchers will leave the recipients with few real choices without putting out a lot more money. I do not think the public is going to go for vouchers of $20,000+ and have never even heard such figures discussed. It they did, the public education budgets would soar. And those already in private schools would and should claim they should get the subsidies too. What it would do in effect, at the rates being proposed, is subsidize the middle class and the rich to abandon public schools and send their children of private schools, and while leaving such choices out of reach financially for the poor.
The other issue is who chooses. Most private schools have selective admission, and limited space. Since unlike public schools they get to choose their students, even if the voucher fully paid for them (which of course it will not), they would still most likely cream the easiest students to teach, leaving the more difficult to teach children to the public schools.
These two factors in combination would end up subsidizing private schools and the middle and upper class families at the expense of public schools and the poor that are left in them. This would further segregate our schooling system into the haves and the have-nots.
Since I have never heard voucher proponents either suggest that vouchers should be at the levels necessary to have them cover the full cost of most private schools, nor to force private schools to take those children, I find their arguments disingenuous.
Charter schools, in theory at least, get around both of the above limitations. There is no tuition; schools receive the same funding as other public schools, and (at least in California) schools cannot select the students. (In reality, though, they often find ways of using other means to "encourage" and "discourage" certain types of students) So, is this not a solution?
Why I still do not favor even this is that it fundamentally changes the purpose of public schools. Traditionally we have considered the education of the next generation to be a concern of society as a whole. In fact, virtually every society has considered this to be true throughout history. For this reason, locally elected school boards have governed our public schools.
Charter schools and voucher systems make schooling a private consumer choice. In the charter and voucher systems consumers choose among the choices offered them, but have no guaranteed right to have a say about the schooling other than making that choice. Those who do not have children in school have no say at all. Private schools are run privately, and do not have to answer to the public. Charter schools usually have to answer for test scores and financial responsibility, but even there it is to the state and not in any direct way to the local public. While charter schools have governing boards, they select their own members of those boards. This gives control of the content of schooling to those who run the schools, often for-profit concerns, but even if not, private concerns of some sort. While our government is not perfect, should I really trust those who have private agendas and do not have to answer to the public to decide the how and what of our next generation's schooling? Public school boards are elected, and have open meetings: private schools do not have to. Even if the charters do have open meetings, they are often run by national organizations and so are inaccessible and would probably just say, "Don't send your child here if you don't like our agenda".
Charters and vouchers are about redefining the public as consumers rather than citizens, which is part of a larger corporate agenda to destroy public institutions and limit the power of the public.
For the above (and other) reasons, I see truly public schools as the only answer for those committed to a democratic society.
Read between the lines the implication that anything government does must be poor quality. Yet since parents in the suburbs and rich areas are perfectly happy with their public schools, why is it only the public schools that poor kids go to that seem to be failing? "Government" schools for the rich and middle class are fine it seems-as long as they do not have to share them with the poor.
No comments:
Post a Comment