There's a lot of talk these days about the growing support for a privatization of America's public school system, and what it augurs over the long haul.
Typically, that's as far as the conversation gets before breaking down into myopic talking points that force people to pledge allegiance to one of two camps: these days you're either pro or anti-charter, pro or anti-union, or -- the most insulting -- pro-adult or pro-kid.
I can't predict how it's all going to play out, but I can see that these binary frames are misleading distractions that work great as sound bites, and prevent us from addressing the primary challenges we face as a nation. I can also suggest an illustrative tale worth paying attention to, on from the other side of the globe where the exact opposite push -- a public-ization of the school system -- is taking place.
The place is Australia, where I recently spent a week as the guest of an organization called the Foundation for Young Australians (FYA), and where, as FYA Research Director Lucas Walsh put it, "the promise of public education as a democratic project remains unfulfilled." As Walsh explained, "Across schooling in Australia students are increasingly segregated on the basis of educational achievement and family economic and cultural assets. Governance and funding are inconsistent, fragmented, and inhibited by policy scope that is limited through short-term political convenience."
Sound familiar? Yet Australia's school system differs mightily from ours in one major way: nearly one-third of its students attend private schools, which, remarkably, are eligible for public dollars.
The result of this system? A lionization of the individual right to choose which school your child will attend - alongside a deepening societal chasm between the haves and the have-nots; a rate of investment in private schools that is three times that of public schools -- alongside a disproportionate number of low-income and Aboriginal children who remain in the underfunded public option; and an ongoing celebration of the Australian notion that everyone deserves a fair go -- alongside the gradual development of a two-tiered, publicly funded education system that a growing number of educators and families refer to as "de facto apartheid."
In response, FYA and others are trying to engender a renewed commitment to the public-ization of Australia's school system. New funding formulas are being proposed, new efforts are underway to make financial and school performance data more transparent and readily available, and new campaigns are being launched to re-prioritize the unique role public schools play in a democratic society. As FYA Board member Ellen Koshland puts it, "More than ever, we need a whole of community commitment to education if Australia is going to lift its game internationally and prepare all of its wonderful young people for success in an uncertain future. The structure of government can either aid this or continue to inhibit it."
It was with these ideas and challenges in mind that I returned from Australia to the States, and re-entered the current climate in which we celebrate the limitless promise of charter schools -- schools that are released from bureaucratic regulation in order to experiment and innovate to find new ways to educate children -- while ignoring the limited opportunities for innovation that exist throughout the rest of the public education system. And I re-entered a climate where the current push is to use federal policy to pit schools and states against one another in a competitive contest that identifies a small number of winners, instead of mandating that all federal funding come with a requirement that any public school (charter or otherwise) share its most promising practices with an eye towards improving the entire system.
In this atmosphere, it's almost heresy to suggest that there's anything wrong with the three C's; charters, choice and competition. But before you categorize me too quickly (Is he a reformer or a status-quo-er? Is he for or against choice?), let me be clear: I love the fact that the charter movement has created new space for innovation, experimentation, and increased choices for low-income families. I love the fact that the Obama administration has stated unequivocally that a high quality public education is a civil right. And I love the fact that we now pay attention to the achievement gap between groups of students that was previously hidden in state and district reports.
I also worry about our refusal to ask some tough questions: How do we create space for innovation without unintentionally creating a two-tiered system of schooling that may serve more children, but still leaves too many behind? If authority becomes more and more centralized - via mayoral control, private management of schools, and the eradication of school boards, how will we ensure that families and community members are engaged, valued, and involved in meaningful decision-making? And what do we need to do now, so we don't find ourselves, a generation out, wondering how to reclaim the public purpose of public education?
Look to our friends Down Under to get a sense of what might happen if those questions remain unasked.
Follow Sam Chaltain on Twitter: www.twitter.com/samchaltain
Public education's purpose is to prepare young people to be able to participate in society as productive citizens- You have to believe that every citizen (and young people are citizens) can make a valuable contribution if provided with the right educational foundation. If you accept this philosophy then you support public education.
However when public schools fail to live up to its promise, populations will flee - public education must become institutions that communities are proud of and want to participate in.
There needs to be some clarification- By privatizing schools, do you mean that they will be for profit centers? Independent/private schools do not need to be for profit.
Education has to leave the nest- it can no longer be viewed as a local responsibility- we need to recognize that our future depends on an educated population which means that no state education board should have the power to make curriculum decisons for the nation based on local politics as what happened in Texas.
We need national standards, assessments and curriculum for our public schools. How you teach to those standards can be flexible so long as the outcomes, student learning and achievemnt are met.
Australia doesn't seem especially relevant. I think we are going to muddle through this for awhile.
We need to return to the Liberal values of the founding fathers, both democrat, and republican.
"America, the first modern liberal state was founded, without a monarch or a hereditary aristocracy.[8"
"Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
The US founders loved " The Enlightenment" of the people. that's part of the general welfare. You need to feed cloth and shelter people before you can educate them, and hopefully Enlighten them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
Bush, Cheney, the GOP, the very flower of the conservative movement, shredded the constitution, bankrupted the economy, abused the truth, tortured, war mongered, let the poor die.
Conservatism is dedicated to destroying the enlightenment of the people, and conserving the monarchies of the rich and the dark ages for the serfs.
Conservatives hate public education, they believe the poor SHOULD be ignorant and fearful.
Conservatism has been waging this war for 200 years, they never deal in good faith.
Charter schools could be public, they could be “not for profit”, if those two concerns were the issue. The California State Education Charter (that thing that charter schools do not have follow) is 18 inches thick. Does it really take three six inch thick books to describe to teachers and administrators how to do their job? How can they provide feedback when the rules are written into law? It does not make sense. How about “public” charter schools? You would have to fight the unions to get them to accept a very different pay and hiring structure in those schools. Is it worth the fight?
You are correct, the issue is how to serve children who are being left behind at a cost that can be maintained by the tax payer. I think it is the barriers erected by the elected officials that are pushing the fight to private versus public.
"If men were angels then government would be un-necessary."
It's bad enough the influence the State of Texas has on school curriculum nationally. I can't wait to see the future of America's students when the US Chamber of Commerce is deciding what they learn.
The push for privatization intimates that the US Government is incompetent to run major enterprises, and that Teachers Unions are the problem with US Education when the fact is the poor state of public education rests primarily on poor American parenting skills.
It maybe the goal of your piece to build a bridge between factions, but how is "Public-ization" of school systems, in essence taking public funds to underwrite private enterprise, any different than mandating people to buy a for profit health insurance policy from private industry? What these trends signify to me is that the "Free Market" from the corporate perspective is dead and the business model now requires raiding public coffers in order to meet investors expectations.
In other words, "public-ization" has nothing to do with the education of America's children.
People deride public education, but in a Privatized Education environment, what would be the financial benefit for Education Corporations to set up shop in Appalachia or in poor urban and rural settings? Because of Public Education in the Philippines, poor children all over the archipelago have access to an education system ... ironically initially developed and implemented by American teachers at the beginning of the 20th Century. I believe American students need at least access to education free of economic constraints and profit considerations, and in order to correct the issues of Public Education you need to allocate proper funds and ensure these funds are getting to the right place ... the students in the classroom.
Bottom line, we should avoid the flirtation with education privatization to begin with so we aren't placed in Australia's position.
On the flip end (well sortof) I have aspeger's. This meant that like MOST asperger's students out there I was bullied on a daily basis and probably assulted on a weekly basis. Because nothing was known about asperger's at the time anytime something went wrong I would start stimming which they saw a sign of me being guilty. Being bullied on a daily basis means by middle school I was clincly depressed and by high school I was suicidal. Teachers stood by and watched most of the time, and even some of them bullied me right along with my classmates. Maybe a voucher wouldn't have been so bad there either. Especcially when school choice was totally impossible in my area (white people weren't allowed to open enroll). Maybe we should start looking into other options... just a thought.
Personally, I think they offer one of the best methods of improving the quality of education in this country.
To contrast your example of Australia, you should look to the DC voucher program and that the most recent studies have shown that not only are the students who were able to take advantage of the program jumped to grade levels in areas such as reading, the students left behind at their old school also saw educational gains. The studies here in America simply do not support the notion that offering choice hurts education.
Since funding is a problem, shouldn't we acknowledge the fact that the DC voucher program educated students for under $7,000 a year while the per pupil spending in public schools is somewhere around $28,000 per year? Wouldn't reducing costs by 75% help areas where funding is a problem rather than hurting them?
I've given two examples from Charter schools, and while I support them I support educational tax credits more as they provide even greater autonomy to parents.
Look at where else government has monopolies (Liquor stores in some states are state run) customer service is not a priority and neither is profit. Private companies can do it better. More competition is better.
1. For profit means privatization. -privatizaion means closed records.Things can legitimately be hidden .( diebold, Enron , Blackwater) They are not open to public scrutiny
2.it also means decreased parent involvement and local community influence.These are important influences that keep schools honest and chilldren motivated. Its very unlikely that poor and rural parents will be able to shop around
3. CEOs eat up big bucks while workers on the ground get decreased salaries and benefits. and of course children , the most vulnerable, are subject to being given crowded classrooms,substandard materials, &enviroments to cut costs and maximize profits.
4,Teachers ibecome mere technicians, not professionals , to instruct children on worksheets( the lower tiered ones at least) and in methods that are cookie cutter,.
Wasn't profit a motive in providing the wonderful health care system you are all so happy with? Did they "do it better" - that explains the high satisfaction level.!
You have 53% of the planets lawyers in the USA - why is it so darn expensive? -
Does profit ensure unregulated free market contractors do splendid work? Doesn't seem to be the case where i live. Did profit from 3rd party lenders jack up the cost of student loans? Yepper. Did profit ensure safety for coal miners or keep melamine out of imported milk? Well no. And what free market for profit schools take the problematic students that require more work and cut into the profit? Do the parents get dinged more if their kid is learning disabled etc? Google 407 ETR and look at the rates for this privately operated highway. It certainly is profitable - they can and do raise rates without any regulation - want all your roads like that? Didn't think so. Do the for profit schools get the "best" teachers - or just the cheapest to increase profit? Do students learn to think - or do they just get a canned curriculum with standardized tests because that's the cheapest way to do things.
Given the current economic meltdown caused by people acting "for profit" pardon my skepticism about your sovereign remedy.