In his most recent comments about education in the United States, and in a sampling of the rhetoric that will soon come from both parties as the presidential debates loom over the horizon, republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney pronounced that inequity in education is "the civil rights issue of our era." This statement is an echo of the sentiments expressed by President Obama a year ago when he also said that "[education] is the civil rights issue of our time."
This positioning of educational inequities as a civil rights issue has been a part of the discourse for decades among educational researchers and experts lamenting the increasing educational gaps among youth from different race and class backgrounds. However, the most recent publicizing of these civil rights issues, and their visibility in the political sphere warrants some attention.
Last week, Mitt Romney released a paper outlining his education plans, and then visited a charter school in West Philadelphia, populated by urban youth of color, to tout his new message of civil rights in education for those who have been "denied an education" in urban schools.
As Romney walked the halls of the urban charter school, met with students and teachers, and provided sound bytes from his new education proposal, it became clear that there are certain messages about his urban education plan that those of us with a vested interest in the education of urban youth must pay attention to. This was made even more clear as he repeated these points during a number of speaking engagements where African-American and Latino voters gathered.
1) "As president, I'm going to give the parents of every low-income and special needs student the chance to choose where their child goes to school."
Romney's blind support of charter schools is indicative of a greater societal problem. The reality is that just because a school has their students in uniforms doesn't mean they're doing any better than neighboring public schools. The question of why charter and private schools are being endorsed so heavily should be paramount among those who have a vested interest in urban education.
Is the intent to send a message about the fact that all public schools are bad and all alternatives that have roots/connections to privatization are good? If all public schools are indeed bad, what does that say about all the students in these schools and how they are viewed by politicians? Is there any truth to the fact that parents will have unlimited school options or are they limited to a "choice" of privately funded or charters that are often unproven as far as student success is concerned and are often experiments in how to engage urban youth? What implications does traveling hours away from their home have on youth, especially when they end up the only person of color in a school with affluent classmates who often don't want them there to begin with? Are they viewed as "the bad kid from public school"?
Urban educators who ask these questions are NOT against ALL charter/private schools. In fact, I am not. However, I am against a narrative that is supported by a political campaign that presents public schools as beyond repair and charters/private schools as the only viable alternatives.
2) "For a single mom living in a shelter with a couple of kids -- those kids are at an enormous disadvantage... trying to help move people to understand, you know, getting married and having families where there's a mom and a dad together has a big impact."
The statement above was made during a speech where Romney advocated for teaching youth who attend schools in impoverished neighborhoods about the benefits of two-parent families. While this may seem like a good idea by many, the assumption that socioeconomically disadvantaged populations choose to have children out of wedlock, and need to be taught to want the "traditional American family" with a "mom and dad" is problematic. First, it does not consider the larger societal biases that result in higher arrests for black/brown males that overwhelmingly affects sustaining "traditional" families in these communities. Furthermore, it does not consider the different models for family that are, and can be, perfectly functional.
3) "... it's not the classroom size that drives the success of school systems."
The statement above has been repeated in many different forms by Romney in defense of his belief that classroom size is not a factor in student success. In his reasoning, he mentions education systems across the globe that have huge class sizes and still manage to be successful. This certainly does not mean that we should make our classes bigger or consider class size a non-factor in education achievement. It's important to consider that the private schools that Romney attended, and the ones his children attend, have small class sizes.
In essence, the Romney campaign is saying that class sizes in public schools can be as large as possible, while those in private schools will remain small. Both kinds of schools will then be compared to each other. This appears to be a deliberate effort to sabotage certain schools, and sends a strong underlying message that blindly supports a privatization of schools.
4) "... if school was a business"
Recent speeches by Romney have discussed his new education plan by making problematic comparisons between education and running a business. This has been a piece of much recent rhetoric on education which suggests that students are products to be manufactured, that teachers are workers that can and should be replaced by less expensive ones if possible, that schools should be for-profit enterprises, and that the entire enterprise can be led by business managers. Each of these notions does not consider that education is completely different from a business. Students are human beings and teachers are experts who develop their skills over time and should be compensated accordingly. A school's main goal should be should meet the students individual needs, not to make a profit. Most importantly, those who lead schools MUST have experience in education.
5) "Eliminate unnecessary certification requirements that discourage new teachers."
In any profession where people have the responsibility to give care to others, it is imperative that those who have this charge are properly certified for their job. The suggestion that teacher certification examinations should be eliminated, essentially means that the Romney camp believes that anyone can walk into a school, and begin teaching students.
In public schools, it is imperative that teachers receive certification. In many cases, they must continually take classes, have at least a master's degree in their field, and take ongoing courses that include topics such as identifying child abuse while also improving their content knowledge. In many charter and private schools, teachers do not necessarily have to be certified. The hiring of non-certified teachers allows the institutions that hire them to pay low salaries (based on their lack of experience), and in the case of for-profit schools, increase their financial bottom line. This stance takes no consideration for the effects that poorly trained teachers have on student outcomes.
Romney's "A Chance for Every Child" is no different that Bush's "No Child Left Behind." Both phrases tug at the heartstrings of the public, but the initiatives themselves are poorly constructed, laden with misconceptions about the nature of teaching and learning. This plan has no respect for teachers and public schools and treat the most vulnerable of our youth like commodities to be assessed, tested, and sold to private companies. Perhaps the real civil rights issue of our time is the politics of rhetoric, and the way that slick political campaigns function to demonize urban youth, pretend to extend a hand via privatization of schools, and concurrently ensures that the needs of urban youth are not met in the schools they are currently in.
Follow Christopher Emdin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chrisemdin
The feferal government has always been around and setting national policies and so forth, but it wasn't until Bush's No Child Left Behind that so many inequities in our schools were brought to light and so many people got their panties in a bunch--starting sparing matching nationally and locally. Most people agree that No Child Left Behind has way too many flaws and was implemented wrong in way too many schools, but stop and think for a moment, when has there been so much debate over the issue of education?
And replacing good parenting is brutally tough for us educators. As a teacher with experience in urban and rural public schools in Kentucky, it is much more difficult to reach students from single or no-parent homes. And unfortunately, this is an epidemic in some black communities.
Education is run by states. The government has very little to do with how a state chooses to teach students or how they spend the money. I am an educator who holds a Master's and multiple certifications. These are necessary but another person is correct, many obtain the advanced degrees for the money, not necessarily the benefit of the child.
Bush and Kennedy had good "intentions" with NCLB (No Child Left Behind), but it failed. In part to how the states implemented it and the stress that it put on schools. It wasn't that the schools shouldn't have standards but the fact that many of our students come with varying degrees of performance, it made it difficult to provide the best education possilbe. Obama's plan has not done much either to help with the issue.
If you want to see changes in the education system, it must be at the state level. They are the ones that can effectively provide equitable education for the student. Also, most charters are public (I think another poster stated this). Parents should have a choice on where they send their kids based on the needs for the student.
That's what should have been done in the past 3-1/2 years?
Well, that's what Romeny & the GOP would have done. If they're elected this year, there will definitely be more Robertses, Scalias and Thomases. Oh yeah, vote GOP — they're smarter. [sarcasm]
being against school vouchers is forcing children into a poor education.
It says that they are pawns to be used by politicians to get votes by claiming a better solution. Please look at the sound bites from both parties and you have your answer.
"In public schools, it is imperative that teachers receive certification."
Why? Basically because once hired you cannot fire them. So you hope (no correlation to performance) that the certification means something.
"In many cases, they must continually take classes, have at least a master's degree in their field, and take ongoing courses that include topics such as identifying child abuse while also improving their content knowledge."
As the child of a teacher I can guarantee you that they take classes, get a master and attend courses for the bonus that comes with the degree or certification. The contract stipulates that they get paid more if they have it. It is irrelevant if they learned anything.
"This stance takes no consideration for the effects that poorly trained teachers have on student outcomes."
Um, can you say "union seniority"? Same issue, why does the union support it if it has an effect on student outcomes?
2 - this means that if you are a single mom, we are going to force you to move to a shelter. Or get married to someone I personally approve of. And we will baptise you, while you are alive if we can, posthumously if we must.
3 - "it is the size of the bank accounts of the parents!"
4 - "I would buy it, liquidate its assets, and dissolve the rest"
5 - "Why shouldn't we just hire high-school kids to teach elementary school kids, and pay them 75% of the minimum wage? College educations are expensive, and taxpayers shouldn't be paying teachers more just so they can subsidize those expensive college educations!"
Yeah, in the best fly by night privatized education mill that can buy a politician.
I think we can have various kinds of schools within a city. Schools are expensive to run, labs, sports, tech, audio, vocational, languages, arts, we could have state of the art schools that concentrated on schools of art, or science, history, robatics, with small schools for the basics and individualized attention. Students would have mentors that would be responsible for them for their entire school career. Teachers would receive extra pay for this. You would be responsible for your students attendance, homework, tutoring, etc. up to successful graduation.
Having students in separate, small, religious schools, or home schooled, or schooled online, or sent to the ultra fancy private school, none of that is good for the student or our country. It promotes segregation, bias, unrealistic outlook on life and society.
The divide and conquer tactic used as an educational strategy is infantile in light of our current struggles for it will cement inequality. Faved.