|
| |
The Public School Lottery
Education/Nancy
Salvato |
February 15, 2005
- There is an old adage which says that a person can
save $365.00 a year by simply not playing the Lottery. It’s true that for
some folks gambling may pay off big, but for the average person there is no
return. It’s just lost money. And for many people, money is better spent on
that which they can control. Those who have money to burn can responsibly
enjoy the thrill of the gamble because they are not left wanting when they
leave the boat. For others, everything they own might be placed on a hope
and a prayer. They may end up leaving the boat without any options; left at
the mercy of the world around them.
In many ways the public school system can be compared to a lottery. A large
number of families have little control over where they can live or the
school their child will attend. It is through "chance and circumstance”
whether the local public school will provide an adequate education. In the
event of failure "controlled choice” in public education provides limited
alternatives, many of which are dependent upon winning a spot in a school
lottery.
Alternatives in the public school system include the following:
1. Limited or unlimited ability to transfer to another public school located
inside or outside of the home district.
2. Magnet schools
3. Charter schools
4. Contracted schools
In statewide open enrollment plans, students who transfer from one school
district to another take state funds with them. The problem is that schools
that fail to attract students are left with less state money and are less
likely to improve. Some schools will perform better while others will do
worse. Parents who transfer their children outside of their home school
districts may find their influence in the new school diminished because it’s
more difficult to vote for school board members and to take the time or find
transportation to go to meetings and events located long distances away.
Community bonding, inherent in a neighborhood school, gets lost.
Some school systems have zones rather than districts. Families rank their
preferences for the schools within their zone. They are awarded one of their
choices depending on the racial and ethnic balance at that school. Improving
schools through free market competition cannot be realized because schools
don’t compete against one another. Controls ensure that schools are provided
with students and money without motivating them to improve. Only when
schools are run independently and have to compete for clients will they feel
compelled to meet the needs of individual parents and students.
Magnet schools provide distinctive curriculum or instruction. By attracting
students from outside an assigned neighborhood attendance zone, they are
intended to desegregate school systems without forced busing. Appealing
magnet programs encourage parents to remain in the public school system and
to agreeably mix white and minority students in formerly segregated schools.
Magnet schools serve only a small percentage of students. Because there
isn’t room for all students, this choice depends on race, income level, and
previous school performance. Often there is a "creaming process" where only
high achievers with involved parents are chosen. Wealthier sections of the
city have more access to magnet schools. Black students must travel further
to attend the best magnets. Commuting is often problematic. It can be said
that what makes a magnet unique is not the curricula but that there are
adequate resources and a safe orderly climate of learning.
Though charter schools are publicly funded; reimbursed by the state for each
student (equaling the average statewide per-pupil expenditure), they are
free of many of the rules and regulations placed on traditional schools.
Most charters form in "strong-law states” because there’s no union control,
there are multiple charter-granting agencies such as the local school board,
state education agency, or university, and the per-pupil funding levels are
realistic.
Teachers, parents, or other would-be educators can apply for permission to
open a school. Some states also allow existing public or nonsectarian
private schools to convert to charter status. Under these circumstances,
private schools lose the luxury of choosing those who attend their schools
because everyone must be accepted.
Autonomy over their budget, staffing and curriculum varies state to state.
Most problems with public funding occur when state legislation is too
permissive. There isn’t a method for choosing or removing the board of
directors, there’s no allowance for state influence over curricula beyond
revoking charters, or there’s no state control over daily operations.
Schools must be able to attract students and fulfill their objectives in
order to maintain their charters. They are usually expected to achieve
certain educational outcomes within three to five years or sponsors will
revoke their charter. Charters typically teach underserved youngsters and
around 25% of their teachers use either "core knowledge" or
"direct-instruction” methodology. Most charters have long waiting lists.
Despite the positive ripple effect charters have on their home districts
(they can be likened to safety valves used to alleviate overcrowding and
potential complaints) spurring the local schools to avail the public of more
information; provide more teacher training; offer full-day kindergarten;
increase their accountability; and improve academics, there is a lot of
resistance from the "Educracy.” Start up charters often times face hostility
from local boards, state education agencies, and unions. Courts and
legislation are used to derail or restrict charter schools with protracted
battles over charter applications, transportation, building leases,
students’ records, hiring practices, and funding allocation, often resulting
in less money available for art and advanced placement.
Some laws require incorporating charters into a school district which
compromises their independence. External accountability requirements result
in a loss of uniqueness. Because of the public funding, it’s inevitable that
charters will face litigation over use of church property, religious leaders
on governing boards, or religious education programs.
Contract schools are publicly funded but are operated by for-profit E M Os
or education-management companies. These companies sign a contract with a
public agency that clearly defines the school mission, level of public
funding, and accountability standards. An outside contractor, in theory,
creates an additional layer of regulation.
The reality is that E M Os do not have to competitively bid for contracts
and there is a notorious lack of oversight and monitoring of sponsored
schools. This in combination with the profit motive of some organizations
has in many instances resulted in a lowering of academic standards and
teacher qualifications.
This occurs because some save money by hiring beginning teachers for low
wages. Resources like labs and books are scarce. Fewer student services,
such as: transportation, school lunches, intramural athletics, band and
orchestra, and extracurricular activities, are available. Some schools
provide students a four hour school day enabling E M Os to profit by
teaching two shifts of students. Some teaching staff has been replaced by
self paced computer instruction. Profiteering exists in the form of excess
rental charges, enrollment misrepresentations, and sponsor chartering fees.
Finally, many E M Os specialize in elementary education because it’s less
costly to teach this age group. Limited-English or disabled students are
high maintenance, yet states usually provide the same subsidy for every
student regardless of any need for special services. E M Os that do target
minority and disadvantaged students weed out hard-to-teach youngsters and
often use scripted, unimaginative teaching and disciplinary techniques.
For the majority of plain folk, the money they gamble on funding public
education could be better spent on independently run schools which meet the
specific needs of their family. The public school system offers few viable
alternatives for a failing school. Spending money on public school isn’t a
lot different than depositing quarters into the Crane Game at an arcade and
trying to grasp one of the low quality stuffed animals available to a select
few who actually win. It’s exciting to win, but what did you really get for
your money?Related
Reading:
Trends and Issues: School Choice
http://eric.uoregon.edu/trends_issues/choice/intrasectional.html
Controlled Choice: An Alternative School Choice Plan. ERIC Digest, Number 70
http://www.ericdigests.org/1992-4/choice.htm
Magnet Schools in Public Education
http://www.psparents.net/magnet_schools.htm
Public School Choice: Issues and Concerns for Urban Educators. ERIC/CUE
Digest No. 63.
http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9217/choice.htm
|
|
