"The highest result of education is tolerance." -- Helen Keller
Choosing a school for your kids is scary. Everything is life and death with parents. You feel like any wrong decision you make now in their upbringing will stunt their growth for life. While it's important to be cognizant of how we are raising our kids, at some point we have to realize that some of our decisions are actually making them less ready for the world.
The following block quotes are from a very good article by Ruth Conniff in the Progressive: Back to (Public) School
The article is useful because as a parent she went through a lot of the same decision making that all parents go through when choosing a school (or a type of school):
"...I'm proud of the parents who are keeping their kids in our community school, and who have decided that the best way to help their kids get a great education is to work to support the staff and help make the school as good as it can be.
All parents worry about sending their kids out into the world ... I don't blame the parents who are fretting enough to wonder whether they should pony up for private education if they can afford to.
...much of parents' nervous gossip about schools conveys less about the quality of the schools themselves than it does about the values of the parents. And while most people assume that private schools are generally of higher quality than public schools, a recent study shows better scores, controlling for economic background, among public school students.
One of the things that the author looked at (and that we did also) was diversity:
"...They were a diverse bunch, and there was something great about going to meets and seeing them all together--boys and girls, white, African-American, Asian and Latino--cheering for each other, fooling around, and generally getting along. It struck me then that some of the ugly cliquishness we read so much about lately--"queen bee" girls, the obsession with money and designer labels, and all the other poisonous elements of the culture I'd like to shield my own kids from--were much less in evidence at my old school than at some elite, private institutions. Part of the reason was that there were so many different kinds of people, from so many different backgrounds, no one really had a chance to establish a monopoly on popularity or status.
That democratic spirit is one reason I fell excited about my daughter starting public school. Besides learning reading and math and all the rest of those important accomplishments, I want her to develop into a happy, healthy, kind person with good values. Going to public school can nurture that."
Good values ... that's pretty much what all parents want their kids to get. But what are "values"? For too many, "values" equates to religious morals. And from one religion to another, they vary widely.
In looking for schools, we get conflicting messages on what to look for. Some say to treat shopping for schools like you would shopping for cars ... test driving certain ones (and even certain teachers): School debate: public vs. private
But the author of our article suggests the opposite:
"...To make it work, parents have to have less of a consumer mentality and more of a cooperative, civic-minded focus. It strikes me that the consumer mentality some of us develop when our kids are in preschool leads directly to a kind of victim mentality. We set out to try to get our kids the best education we can afford. From vouchers to Catholic schools to tony private institutions, more and more places give more and more parents the ability to exercise their consumer power. There's even a theory among conservatives that this sort of behavior will make the public schools better: that they will be forced to improve as more parents vote with their feet."
Ah, school vouchers. Proponents would say that competition in all things is beneficial. I'm sure that some that advocate these have noble intentions but I believe that implementation of school vouchers is wrong on so many levels. First of all, it would open the floodgates for using public tax dollars for religious-based education. The problems with that are obvious ... at least for those that believe in the Constitution. And even religious people should be against it because it would increase the government's ability to dictate how they teach. Secondly, it is reliant on the mistaken belief that private schools are providing a higher quality education, which there is no proof of (even the Bush administration admits this - Public/Private)
In general, I'm not really sure who is advocating school vouchers. They really don't make sense. Libertarians that would support the "free-market" aspect of them would have to be against the public-funding of education, particularly religious-based education. And religious people that would enjoy being able to afford to put their children in schools that taught according to their "morals" would have to be against the government intrusion into that education.
Or, there's home schooling, where the motivation is all too often for religious reasons. They equate religion with morality. How is this preparing your children for the real world? It seems to be more about preparing your children for a cloistered life than for giving them the tools to be tolerant of other religions. I think this comes down to the "it takes a village" vs. "it takes a family" argument. I'm on the "it takes a village" side.
I don't want to give the impression that the only reason people would home-school is for religious reasons. There are certainly many valid reasons for choosing home-schooling. But I believe that the push in the last twenty years in home-schooling has been a religious push.
We chose a charter school for Alex. These are basically public schools and are funded by tax dollars but they have to be first be approved by the state for their curriculum and they must go through the normal testing. The advantages of them are that they can have smaller class sizes and are freed from some of the rules of a normal public school. Do I think we're doing the right thing by sending him to a charter school? I don't know. Do I think it's the right thing to do for society in general? Again, I don't know. Parenting is a trial-and-error thing. So far, we are very pleased with the school, Alex is learning a lot and he enjoys the school. Is there the potential that taking these tax dollars out of normal public schools may harm them? Potentially, yes. And charter schools that are not properly monitered and made to meet state standards have the potential of hurting students in the long run. But this is true of any schools. One thing that I have noticed at about Alex's school is the high level of parental involvement and genuine desire by the faculty and staff to forge good relationships with the parents. I'm sure that's not true of all schools (of any type), but it's certainly a goal to strive for.
The author closed with:
"... I am most impressed by the parents I know who are acting on the idea that we must invest in the community where we live, and work to make it good for all of us. At some point you have to stop shopping around and make the best of things where you are. At least, that's the idea I'd like my kids to grow up with.
Maybe that's the best advice. Take into account both what is good for your child and what's good for your neighborhood. More involvement in the place where you live ... whether it means interaction with neighbors, schools, volunteering, patronage of businesses that keep their money in your community ... seems to be a wise way forward.
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." -- Nelson Mandela
6 comments:
We chose a charter school for Alex.
You're very lucky you had a choice.
The number of parents who have no choice but to send their kids to incarcerat.... er, I mean government enforced monopo... er, I mean forced institutionalized education because the government steals their money to pay for it is a bit appalling. That's the appeal of vouchers. It's the financial choice, since everybody pays for it anyway why not give them the choice on how their kids are educated? They’re not at all a solution; it’s just better than the terrible situation people are forced into now.
Obviously there are flaws to such a system, the religious aspect you mentioned is one but more so is the fact that once vouchers are enabled all private schools would be subject to Government approval and regulation before the vouchers would be allowed to be used there. Basically just creating glorified public schools anyway.
It's not at all the Libertarian model for education; the Libertarian dream would be the abolition of the public school system. Ah, what a wonderful state that would be.
To make it work, parents have to have less of a consumer mentality and more of a cooperative, civic-minded focus.
Only in the public sector is this mind blowing thought process prevalent. The thought that the consumer has to change their mentality or behavior to suit the provider's abilities. It's such a strange and absurd thought that if it were applied to the private sector people would LOL all over themselves. Imagine Sony telling people they just have to change the way they think about televisions, get used to a crappy picture because it's for the betterment of the community. It’s a completely false notion, yet we see it in the public sector ALL THE TIME and accept it. Too much traffic? It’s the consumer’s fault for driving too much! Water shortage? Obviously people are using too much water! Public School failing? No sir! People just need to lower their expectations a bit! No, no, no, don’t shop around, just deal with the crap your dealt and make do! Such thoughtless nonsense.
They were a diverse bunch, and there was something great about going to meets and seeing them all together--boys and girls, white, African-American, Asian and Latino--cheering for each other, fooling around, and generally getting along. It struck me then that some of the ugly cliquishness we read so much about lately--"queen bee" girls, the obsession with money and designer labels, and all the other poisonous elements of the culture I'd like to shield my own kids from--were much less in evidence at my old school than at some elite, private institutions.
I lol’d at this bit for a good three minutes. What is she basing this assumption on? Nevermind the fact that all those stereotypical “ugly cliquishness” and “obsession with money and designer labels” ideas are based on our image of public schools, (I’m sure it’s not the public school’s fault though. we should just blame rich people since they’re such snobs!) what makes her think private schools would be somehow MORE inclined to produce these stereotypes?
Or, there's home schooling, where the motivation is all too often for religious reasons. They equate religion with morality. How is this preparing your children for the real world? It seems to be more about preparing your children for a cloistered life than for giving them the tools to be tolerant of other religions.
I’m not sure what you mean by “all too often” but there are obviously plenty of reasons for parents to educate there own children. Of course all parents educate their own children and the education a child receives in a public school room is only a small portion of what he learns. The fact that some of us choose to teach our kids 2+2 as well as how to tie their shoes should make no difference to anyone else. Unfortuneatly, what happens “all too often” is people impose their values on others and insit they put their children in a public school system.
He-he. If you only spent as much time on your own blog as you do on other people's.
You're very lucky you had a choice. -- Yes, we were. But we are also lucky that we can afford to drive him 5 miles in each direction each day and that we have enough flexibility in our jobs to allow us the time to do so.
I grew up in many states (AZ, Oregon, Iowa, Nevada) and attended many different public schools. These were generally small communities and we never had the option of choosing a private or charter school. And most places don't. I'd rather that we work hard to make our public schools the best that they can be. Some things should never be privatized. There is such a thing as the "common good". Sure, middle-class and above families may benefit from choice, but I've been part of segments of society where you don't have that choice. Taking money out of lower-income areas is going to cause a bigger problem. It is more expensive to try and support the permanent underclass we would be creating than to make sure that all of our public schools are as good as they can be.
I may be defending public schools, but I am not defending the status quo. Don't make that mistake.
I have yet to ever see any evidence that a competitive free market, without restrictions and without balance from the public sector, will be able to provide adequate and affordable medical care, sanitation, transportation and education to all of the people. Quite the opposite. The Milwaukee school system is often cited as a voucher program success, when it is actually the opposite: Free-Market Education
If you want to get at the real causes of the problems with our public schools, look at econonmic segregation and the abandonment of lower income areas. Do you honestly think high quality private schools are going to move to the inner city? Do you think that people in those neighborhoods can ship their kids to the private schools? And do you think those white bread tony private schools will accept kids from the inner city with open arms?
An education monopoly is never cited as a problem in affluent suburbs with a sufficient tax base so why is it cited as the reason for the failure of the public school system in those areas without the tax base?
The thought that the consumer has to change their mentality or behavior to suit the provider's abilities. -- That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that it should be in all of our self-interest to make the schools that we have the best that they can possibly be. We SHOULD expect more out of schools. But, abandoning them is not the answer.
To assume that the private sector always has the common good in mind is ridiculous. Today is a perfect example. Enron. I'm sure Lay and Skilling had the public good in mind when they were screwing thousands of employees out of their retirement and were manipulating people's lives in California thanks to energy deregulation.
The free market is great but it has to have a counterbalance.
Concerning my assumptions on home-schooling, I gave the caveat that religion did not represent the only reason that people opt out of public schools. But in this age, it represents a very large percentage of those home-schooling. And evangelicals actively encourage it. It's a cop-out and it's creating a cultish new generation like those shown in Jesus Camp.
I like that closing argument.
We are the community we live in and we can't complain that the community is failing if we haven't done our part to be an active player in it. Our children are our most treasured assets--why would we want to remove them from their community and then force them to change it when they get older?
You know?
It's weird.
But we are also lucky that we can afford to drive him 5 miles in each direction each day and that we have enough flexibility in our jobs to allow us the time to do so.
That’s the lucky I was referring to. Just having the option to go to a private school is only half the choice. Most people can’t afford to send their kids to a private school even if there is one available because the Government charges exorbitant property taxes to fund their failing schools and leave nothing for the parents to pay for a different school. And remember, even renters pay property taxes.
Some things should never be privatized.
Even if that is true, and I won’t say it is, but if it were why should we sacrifice one our most important services to the common good? What if I want something better than the common good for my children? What if I simply have different values than what the common good define my children should have? Public entities necessarily cater to the lowest common denominator, how is that good for any one?
Sure, middle-class and above families may benefit from choice, but I've been part of segments of society where you don't have that choice.
The biggest benefactors from privatized education would be the lower class. Upper and middle class already have decent education, so they stand to only gain marginal improvements. It’s the lower class that would make huge improvements because the current system is so lacking. There would be more choice, cheaper options, and superior quality. We wouldn’t be creating a permanent lower class anymore than privatizing food creates a permanent lower class. We’d be empowering them by giving them the thing that we take for granted; choice.
I have yet to ever see any evidence that a competitive free market, without restrictions and without balance from the public sector, will be able to provide adequate and affordable medical care, sanitation, transportation and education to all of the people.
Yeah, there’s never been a Government willing to release it’s money making grip on these institutions. It hardly makes for evidence that privatizing wouldn’t work. Heck, our healthcare system is the most privatized in the world, despite SEVERE regulation and our stupid inflationary money policy that drives the costs of services and medications through the roof, and not coincidently it’s easily the best healthcare system in the World. There’s not even a close second. Of course people want to fix that for the “common good” as well. sigh
The Milwaukee school system is often cited as a voucher program success, when it is actually the opposite: Free-Market Education
That article is as slanted as Karl Rove. I really like this part though:
“Carter's Christian Academy (K4–1) is described as "essentially a small storefront building with a couple of tiny rooms redone as classrooms. ...There were no visible books or toys or paper." The school's two teachers have high school diplomas, and the highest-paid teacher makes $8 an hour.
At Grace Christian Academy (K4–7), one staff member privately told reporters "that there was no curriculum. Several classrooms were using worksheets downloaded from the Internet.”
Tiny rooms? No toys? Teachers with only high school diplomas? Using worksheets downloaded from the tubes? OH NOS! Sounds like me and my wife are running a nightmare of a school! Heck, she only has a GED! It’s a wonder any of our kids can even read!
Anyway, I'm not pro-voucher, I'm anti-public education. Vouchers are just another form of public education.
Do you honestly think high quality private schools are going to move to the inner city?
Nope. Well, there will be one or two probably. Of course schools in inner lower class areas are going to be less than upper class schools. Of course, that’s how they are now so I don’t see how that’s an argument against private and for public education. Except currently we continue to pump cash into failing schools and continue to force parents to ship their kids to violent, drug ridden, institutionalized hellholes. Then we complain how home school parents are isolating their children. One would hope!
An education monopoly is never cited as a problem in affluent suburbs with a sufficient tax base so why is it cited as the reason for the failure of the public school system in those areas without the tax base?
I consider them a huge problem. In my area, which is actually pretty racially mixed, but probably more middle class than lower class, they just tricked the public into raising our property taxes again with the threat of cutting sports and music programs. Fear tactics like this are commonplace among “affluent suburbs” where huge amounts of bureaucrazy require huge amounts of public support. Of course just stating the facts that the schools budgets are loaded with unnecessary expenses and need more tax money would never fly with voters, so school boards resort to threats and emotional, “IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN” nonsense to fill their pockets.
To assume that the private sector always has the common good in mind is ridiculous. Today is a perfect example. Enron. I'm sure Lay and Skilling had the public good in mind when they were screwing thousands of employees out of their retirement…
I consider Enron to be a huge success for the private sector. Lay and Skilling are individuals who chose to commit crimes. Their likes are in the public AND private sector, aren’t they? I mean I could just as easily point out that the number one profession caught by anti-predator/pedophilia websites like Perverted-Justice is public school teacher and claim that is indicative of the public sector. But I believe they are simply individuals who choose to commit crimes. The real difference is that Enron went out of business and stopped screwing lives. It failed because it was a terrible company. That’s the efficiency of the private sector. If Enron were a public sector company it would go on running and screwing people for years and years. If it operated at a loss it would simply raise taxes to pay for it’s sub-standard product. If people complained about it, they would simply lay guilt trips and tell them they are not considering the “common good.” And who, exactly, would be benefiting from that?
I haven’t seen Jesus Camp so I can’t really comment on your cultist fears, but one thing I would be interested in hearing is how you consider home schooling a “cop-out”? Home schooling costs more than public school (and of course we still have to pay for the public schools). It takes more of a parent’s time, energy, and usually requires that one parent forgo their own career. It’s a lot of things, but I’m not sure cop-out is one of them.
...should we sacrifice one our most important services to the common good? What if I want something better than the common good for my children? -- That's a dicey one. To a certain extent, we are sacrificing each day for the common good. In general, we're not driving on "private" roads or using "private" sanitation. If national parks were privatized, it would be a disaster, with motorbiking into the heart of the Grand Canyon and climbing Mt. Rushmore.
But I get your point and I don't want to take away that ability for people to put their kids into the private schools of their choice. I just don't want to pay for it. And you probably feel the same way about public schools ... it's fine to use them but you just don't want to have to pay for it.
I consider Enron to be a huge success for the private sector. -- But who is paying for their failure? Lay was able to protect the vast majority of his holdings from the people in his company that actually need it. How is it a free market success when there wasn't even a level playing field within the company? Executives were allowed to unload stock when holders of 401K's were forbidden. It's not a free market. Our laws are skewed to give owners of these large companies benefits that us working stiffs cannot get.
Scott--
It takes more of a parent’s time, energy, and usually requires that one parent forgo their own career. It’s a lot of things, but I’m not sure cop-out is one of them.
Home school doesn't take up more of the parent's time and energy than public school does.
A ton of my family and friends do home school and like half of the parents at my church do it too, so I know the process pretty well and I happen to know that home school is what you make of it and so is public school. Between volunteering in my kid's classes, sitting down with them every day to complete homework and then going to all the extra events and fundraisers--I'm a busy gal.
:)
Post a Comment