Monday, June 20, 2005
failing schools
To put it simply, parents make the schools go round. There is no politician, or administrator, or teacher with as much power to quickly and efficiently change a local school policy than parents. Parents can change what is taught, how it is taught, and, to some extent, who teaches it. The highest performing schools are usually schools in areas with involved, educated parents. Sports teams are well-funded largely because of active parent-run athletic booster organizations. Parents help raise money to buy band uniforms, school trips, and playground equipment.
The power that parents have can be frustrating. Parents can stop a book from being read, or a movie from being shown. Parents can get an assignment altered, a grade curbed, or a teacher reprimanded. Parents can get their kid's punishment decreased and their schedule changed.
There is a great deal of talk about the "No Child Left Behind" Act. Public school reform debate often features talk of school choice and vouchers. My feelings about these issues are very strong and influenced by two years in a school that has a demographic which makes it vulnerable to the negative effects of this Act. What I can share is my personal narrative about what No Child Left Behind looks like to a disadvantaged school. You may have had an absolutely wonderful experience with it, but I am convinced that any positive results that the Act has come with a heavy price for the populations that are the least able to pay it.
The basic concept of this legislation is that a school must prove that it is making annual yearly progress (AYP). This progress is determined by a number of factors, the most talked-about one being standardized test scores. If a school fails to make AYP, parents are given the option to remove their child from the failing school and place them in a successful school within the system. The failing school then faces a series of reform procedures. As a result, a school that does not meet AYP is in danger of having the highest performing students (and the ones with the most concerned parents) leave the school. Guess what happens to test scores when that happens?
Schools are already far too segregated by economic class. Schools where most students are from low-income households have less parental involvement to begin with because the parents lack the time, education, and energy to motivate them to get involved in the school. Simply put, school choice results in a sort of invisible wall within public education. There is one side of the wall that features well-funded schools, with ample resources, high test scores, and middle-to-high income students. Then there is a side reserved for low-income students whose parents lack the resources and flexibility of transportation that would allow them to sent their child elsewhere.
I know that, when I first began thinking about sending my children to a public school, I wanted the freedom of choice to make sure they went to the "best" school. I never gave much thought to how a "best" school mentality affects the very real children who are attending the "worst" schools. These are the children who most need to attend schools that have strong parent advocates who will mediate and stand up for the education of their children. These are the children that desperately need to attend well-funded schools. These are the children that need school to be a place that has a computer lab, or a playground, or a basketball court - because they don't have access to those things outside of school. These are the children that most need the example of room mothers that bake cupcakes and assist with reading circles or fathers who take a day off of work to chaperone a field trip.
Within school systems, money is not funneled towards the "needs improvement" schools. For example, in my district, there is talk about opening a magnet school to service the students in the lower-income area schools. This magnet school would be for students with an A or B average. It does not take psychic abilities to predict what effect a magnet school like that would have on the test scores and AYP reports of the schools it drew its students from. And yet, the magnet school would be wonderful for public relations. It would provide a high performing school in a low-income, largely minority area. It would make the vocal and more highly educated parents happy, because their children would be receiving a more prep-school appearing education. It would be held up as an example of the wonderful opportunities provided by the educational flexibility of school choice. It would be a school I would feel comfortable sending my own children to. And yet, I know now that it would come at a cost.
Schools are funded based on enrollment. Every child whose parents decide to send their child elsewhere take money away from the school their child would have attended. That money would pay for teachers, and textbooks, and toilet paper. And yet, money is only a part of the equation. The biggest thing that schools lose when a concerned, educated parent who wants their child to have the "best" education decides to abandon their local public school is the power and hope and advocacy that only a concerned parent can bring.
I am deeply concerned about the growing trend to pull out of schools. Someone left a comment on the previous post that mentioned the admonition for Christians to be salt and light. Salt is needed for things that would fester and rot without it. Light is needed in places where it would be otherwise dark.
I don't believe that everyone has to send their children to a public school. Public schools are not the right choice for every child or every family. What I do hope to do in this and the next few posts is simply to put public education out there as a point for discussion. We often talk about hunger, and poverty, and justice, and peace, and the ways that we can advocate for changes. I've read very little discussion about faith and education that is not centered around the evils of public education and the "solution" of pulling out. While this may help our own biological children avoid the problems in schools, it comes with a heavy cost - and the people that are being forced to pay that price are children.
"First, while the Act is supposed to raise achievement across all schools, it creates incentives for states to lower academic standards. Second, while the Act is supposed to close the achievement gap, it creates incentives to increase segregation by class and race and to push low-performing students out of school entirely, which will make it even more difficult for disadvantaged students to catch up to their more affluent peers. Finally, while the Act is supposed to bring talented teachers to every classroom, it may deter some from teaching altogether and divert others away from the most challenging classrooms, where they are needed the most. In short, although the Act is supposed to promote excellence and equity, it may work against both."
- James Yan, NYU Law Review
The power that parents have can be frustrating. Parents can stop a book from being read, or a movie from being shown. Parents can get an assignment altered, a grade curbed, or a teacher reprimanded. Parents can get their kid's punishment decreased and their schedule changed.
There is a great deal of talk about the "No Child Left Behind" Act. Public school reform debate often features talk of school choice and vouchers. My feelings about these issues are very strong and influenced by two years in a school that has a demographic which makes it vulnerable to the negative effects of this Act. What I can share is my personal narrative about what No Child Left Behind looks like to a disadvantaged school. You may have had an absolutely wonderful experience with it, but I am convinced that any positive results that the Act has come with a heavy price for the populations that are the least able to pay it.
The basic concept of this legislation is that a school must prove that it is making annual yearly progress (AYP). This progress is determined by a number of factors, the most talked-about one being standardized test scores. If a school fails to make AYP, parents are given the option to remove their child from the failing school and place them in a successful school within the system. The failing school then faces a series of reform procedures. As a result, a school that does not meet AYP is in danger of having the highest performing students (and the ones with the most concerned parents) leave the school. Guess what happens to test scores when that happens?
Schools are already far too segregated by economic class. Schools where most students are from low-income households have less parental involvement to begin with because the parents lack the time, education, and energy to motivate them to get involved in the school. Simply put, school choice results in a sort of invisible wall within public education. There is one side of the wall that features well-funded schools, with ample resources, high test scores, and middle-to-high income students. Then there is a side reserved for low-income students whose parents lack the resources and flexibility of transportation that would allow them to sent their child elsewhere.
I know that, when I first began thinking about sending my children to a public school, I wanted the freedom of choice to make sure they went to the "best" school. I never gave much thought to how a "best" school mentality affects the very real children who are attending the "worst" schools. These are the children who most need to attend schools that have strong parent advocates who will mediate and stand up for the education of their children. These are the children that desperately need to attend well-funded schools. These are the children that need school to be a place that has a computer lab, or a playground, or a basketball court - because they don't have access to those things outside of school. These are the children that most need the example of room mothers that bake cupcakes and assist with reading circles or fathers who take a day off of work to chaperone a field trip.
Within school systems, money is not funneled towards the "needs improvement" schools. For example, in my district, there is talk about opening a magnet school to service the students in the lower-income area schools. This magnet school would be for students with an A or B average. It does not take psychic abilities to predict what effect a magnet school like that would have on the test scores and AYP reports of the schools it drew its students from. And yet, the magnet school would be wonderful for public relations. It would provide a high performing school in a low-income, largely minority area. It would make the vocal and more highly educated parents happy, because their children would be receiving a more prep-school appearing education. It would be held up as an example of the wonderful opportunities provided by the educational flexibility of school choice. It would be a school I would feel comfortable sending my own children to. And yet, I know now that it would come at a cost.
Schools are funded based on enrollment. Every child whose parents decide to send their child elsewhere take money away from the school their child would have attended. That money would pay for teachers, and textbooks, and toilet paper. And yet, money is only a part of the equation. The biggest thing that schools lose when a concerned, educated parent who wants their child to have the "best" education decides to abandon their local public school is the power and hope and advocacy that only a concerned parent can bring.
I am deeply concerned about the growing trend to pull out of schools. Someone left a comment on the previous post that mentioned the admonition for Christians to be salt and light. Salt is needed for things that would fester and rot without it. Light is needed in places where it would be otherwise dark.
I don't believe that everyone has to send their children to a public school. Public schools are not the right choice for every child or every family. What I do hope to do in this and the next few posts is simply to put public education out there as a point for discussion. We often talk about hunger, and poverty, and justice, and peace, and the ways that we can advocate for changes. I've read very little discussion about faith and education that is not centered around the evils of public education and the "solution" of pulling out. While this may help our own biological children avoid the problems in schools, it comes with a heavy cost - and the people that are being forced to pay that price are children.
"First, while the Act is supposed to raise achievement across all schools, it creates incentives for states to lower academic standards. Second, while the Act is supposed to close the achievement gap, it creates incentives to increase segregation by class and race and to push low-performing students out of school entirely, which will make it even more difficult for disadvantaged students to catch up to their more affluent peers. Finally, while the Act is supposed to bring talented teachers to every classroom, it may deter some from teaching altogether and divert others away from the most challenging classrooms, where they are needed the most. In short, although the Act is supposed to promote excellence and equity, it may work against both."
- James Yan, NYU Law Review
Labels: save as draft
