In my 34 years as a public educator, both teacher and administrator, my experiences with school choice were in smaller or rural public schools in NE Minnesota. However, my concerns about school choice relate to public education in general. I wrote Myths of Educational Choice (Praeger 1993) to fully describe the complex social, political, and economic issues related to school choice. My concerns apply to all the across-the-board, unrestricted Minnesota choice programs, including PSEO (Post Secondary Enrollment Options), open enrollment, and charter schools. The theory behind school choice is that competition will force public school to improve. By definition, competition means winners and losers. A brief look at the winners and losers in school choice highlights my concerns.
Who are the winners? Those students/parents who chose out of educational necessity win. They are gifted or talented students who have run out of the curricular choices in their home district. Those qualified few may benefit from the PSEO program or enrollment in a larger school district with more advanced curricular choices. Why not limit PSEO options to highly qualified students rather than open the floodgates for students/parents looking for two free years of college, whether they are ready and able or not! Why not limit open enrollment to educational need rather than introduce chaos into our entire public education system, which is the bedrock of our democracy?
Other winners may include troubled or failing students who just need a second chance or a different approach. However, there were many alternative programs prior to Minnesota's school choice legislation, so this is no justification for wholesale school choice programs.
Neighboring school districts win when students chose because the get the windfall profits as the state aids follow student enrollment. Schools now have to allocate precious resources to advertise and recruit for enrollments.
Taxpayer groups and politicians win with school choice because choice is cheap! They can proclaim choice as reform and a way to improve public schools, without providing adequate and equitable funding for public schools.
However, the losers in school choice are my primary concern. Too many students leave their resident school for reasons that have nothing to do with a better education. They go to college before they are ready and then fail to graduate with their class. When parents/students leave for casual or temporary reasons like romance, athletics, proximity to after school jobs, or parents daycare convenience, community commitment and connection is lost. Worse yet, many students lose educational progress when unregulated charter schools fail due to mismanagement.
But students who stay behind are the big losers. Many of these parents/students have no choice. Economics or geography keep them trapped in their losing local schools. These schools are forced to cut programs and increase class sizes to balance budgets decimated by lost foundation aids that follow the students leaving.
The losing school districts can't pass revenue referendums when voters' kids attend neighboring schools. For example, St. Louis County School District voters rejected the last two revenue referendums by 226 votes in 2006 and 402 votes in 2007. This is a geographically huge, consolidated district in NE Minnesota. It is bordered by 19 neighboring school districts and four post-secondary institutions. Could these failed referendums be due to the fact that over 600 resident students do not attend district schools? That number represents annual revenue losses of close to $4 million. Why vote to raise your school taxes when your kids are not attending their local public school?
In brief, while a few may benefit from school choice, their choices diminish the choices and quality of education for the majority who don't or can't choose. It's important to note here that neighboring districts or charter schools are not required to accept and educate all students as are resident districts. Thus, many handicapped or learning-disabled students have no choice.
The Minnesota Constitution, Article XIII, states, "It is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools." There's nothing uniform happening to Minnesota's public schools with school choice! Choice means competition and competition means winners and losers. There should not be "losers" and inequity inherent in the laws governing Minnesota's public education system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I like your insights. I have a few questions to raise based on my experiences: Do you think that today's schools serve the 30% as they were only originally intended? How will technology affect future schooling?
I do not think that you are accurate in your note "that neighboring districts or charter schools are not required to accept or educate all students..." Charters are public schools. I know of many example in which handicapped or special education student receive better attention than in their former district. Charters are publicly funded, just as districts are.
One last comment, I think that sometimes many of us view "the system" as something static. The primary and secondary institutions have been slow to keep up with technology and relationship building. I am not one who believes more money will solve the problems. I often times ask people why is school grades separated into K-6, 7-12, then postsecondary? Why isn't it one system? What does a grade even mean?
I am done, but I appreciate you comments. Your blog came up on my google alert. ;)
Aaron Grimm
Judy, I just bought your book this week when I was working in Cook. I've started reading it, and want to thank you for going through hell and back to inch our society a little further in the right direction. I, too, experienced discrimination for the company I'm currently working for. I worked for full time hours for four years before I finally put my foot down and fought management to upgrade me to full time. Instead, they gave me a part time job for another 4 years. Finally a full time position opened up and I applied for it. My manager warned me it would be hard, stressful work. I told him I do more physically demanding work landscaping my yard and garden and am not afraid of hard work. After 8 years I'm finally full time. But I went through the "Guarenteed Fair Treatment Act" at work, saw a lawyer in Virginia, who saw my documentation and told me I had a case, but suggested I go through Minnesota Humane Resourses first. That was a shambles. My case went to 5 different people in 3 months, and finally ended up with a man who had English as a second language that no one could understand. After months of their research they determined I didn't have a case. Being they said that, the lawyer who told me I definately had a case turned me down. And the retaliation from my manager and co-workers was unbearable. I even went into the hospital one day thinking I was having a heart attack from the stress. Reading your book I realize what I would have endured if I'd pursued the case.
So thank you again for seeing it through, you're the "snowplow" for many talented, hard-working women.
L. Manthei
Hibbing
"By definition, competition means winners and losers."
Please be real careful with this kind of simplistic analysis. Competition is generally a decent path to achieve maximum public welfare. Markets fail all the time in the real world, but I fear you may be missing the point. Competition does not have to result in any losers. The type of school to school competition you talk about could result in a resorting of students so as the better schools attract higher numbers, easing the financial burden on the worse schools, resulting in an equilibrium of a better overall educational system.
Post a Comment