The Continuing Failure Of Public Education
Posted by: Jubal | 04/15/2008 12:52 AM
If our public schools were run by corporations, those companies would be the subject of class-action lawsuits.
An excellent op-ed in today's OC Register drew my thoughts to this topic. Cal State Fullerton philosophy professor Gary Jason marks the 25th anniversary of the watershed "A Nation At Risk" education report by examining the continuing academic and economic failure of America's public school system -- despite the hundreds of billions of tax dollars with which we have carpet bombed our schools during the last quarter century.
Liberals cannot talk enough about how "the children' are our future and how critical it is they have the opportunity to obtain a quality education. I agree.
But if it is really all about "the children" for liberals, then why do they -- or more accurately, the Democratic Party as an institution -- reflexively entrust that future to an exorbitantly expensive, inefficient, union-dominated, government bureaucracy.
If quality, excellence, innovation and opportunity are the results for which one is looking, why turn to an entity with as poor a track record in those areas as government?
That's a question for Democrats to ponder, and possibly reappraise the cost to their proclaimed ideals of selling their party's soul to the teachers unions.
It's also something for suburban parents to think about when they protest state budget cuts. What they ought to be protesting is the nature of the public school system that has evolved in the past 35 years, and asking themselves what happens to the ever increasing billions spent on California public schools?
The belief we can spend our way to educational excellence was not a Democratic idea. When "A Nation At Risk" was released in 1983, the notion enjoyed support on both sides of the aisle. I was one of those Californians who voted for Prop. 98 because it seemed to make sense, at the time, to set aside at least 40% of the general fund for public schools.
But if after a quarter century throwing money at it, public education has not only failed to improve but deteriorated vis-a-vis other industrial societies (i.e. our competitors), then it's reasonable to conclude insufficient spending isn't the problem.
What is the point in chanting about putting more money "into the classroom" when the current, bureaucracy-encrusted system soaks up so many of those classroom-bound tax dollars? It's like trying to fill a sponge-covered glass by pouring water on the sponge and settling for however much dribbles through to the glass. The common sense solution is to remove the sponge. The standard Democratic response is to pour more water onto the sponge.
It's ironic that the Democratic Party has become so dependent on the public school unions that is opposes policy innovations like , The Democratic Party defines itself to a large extent by a very vocal commitment to helping poor and minorities -- the members of our society who are most harmed by the failed public school system Yet, the Democratic Party has become so dependent upon the public school unions that as a party it opposes policy innovations such as school vouchers that provide poor students a ticket to a better education and a better life.
Republicans can't escape blame, either. While GOP political leaders overwhelmingly favor school vouchers, suburban GOP voters have -- in California, at least -- been a huge barrier to the kinds of reforms that would provide the most immediate educational relief to poor children.
There were school voucher initiatives on the ballot in 1993 and in 2000. And in both elections, the successful strategy to defeat them was primarily based on stoking the fears of suburban parents that moving to a voucher system -- while it would expand educational opportunities for the poor -- it might hurt their kids' schools.
I don't mean to imply there are no good public schools out there. There are plenty of them. But there are also plenty of public schools that are a disgrace. And plenty of good public school schools that ought to be better, as well as mediocre schools there's no reason can't be good.
Unfortunately for the students consigned to it, we've acquired by accretion a school system that primarily serves itself, and secondarily the students who bring those average daily attendance dollars in their wakes.
I used to think the public school system couldn't just keep getting worse. I believed ultimately some tipping point or critical mass would be reached at which parents en masse would decide they'd had have enough, and would be willing too support the kind of systemic changes necessary to make American K-12 public schools world-class.
I'm much less certain nowadays. The system doesn't get any better. If anything, it gets worse while year after year, the voters reward failure.
My wife and I made our choice years ago. We pay our taxes to support this failed, broken system and sacrifice to put our four daughters through Catholic school. I feel badly for those parents who'd like their children to have an alternative to the public system, but lack the financial resources to provide one even if they sacrifice. In the meantime, I wonder if we'll ever reach that tipping point.
An excellent op-ed in today's OC Register drew my thoughts to this topic. Cal State Fullerton philosophy professor Gary Jason marks the 25th anniversary of the watershed "A Nation At Risk" education report by examining the continuing academic and economic failure of America's public school system -- despite the hundreds of billions of tax dollars with which we have carpet bombed our schools during the last quarter century.
Liberals cannot talk enough about how "the children' are our future and how critical it is they have the opportunity to obtain a quality education. I agree.
But if it is really all about "the children" for liberals, then why do they -- or more accurately, the Democratic Party as an institution -- reflexively entrust that future to an exorbitantly expensive, inefficient, union-dominated, government bureaucracy.
If quality, excellence, innovation and opportunity are the results for which one is looking, why turn to an entity with as poor a track record in those areas as government?
That's a question for Democrats to ponder, and possibly reappraise the cost to their proclaimed ideals of selling their party's soul to the teachers unions.
It's also something for suburban parents to think about when they protest state budget cuts. What they ought to be protesting is the nature of the public school system that has evolved in the past 35 years, and asking themselves what happens to the ever increasing billions spent on California public schools?
The belief we can spend our way to educational excellence was not a Democratic idea. When "A Nation At Risk" was released in 1983, the notion enjoyed support on both sides of the aisle. I was one of those Californians who voted for Prop. 98 because it seemed to make sense, at the time, to set aside at least 40% of the general fund for public schools.
But if after a quarter century throwing money at it, public education has not only failed to improve but deteriorated vis-a-vis other industrial societies (i.e. our competitors), then it's reasonable to conclude insufficient spending isn't the problem.
What is the point in chanting about putting more money "into the classroom" when the current, bureaucracy-encrusted system soaks up so many of those classroom-bound tax dollars? It's like trying to fill a sponge-covered glass by pouring water on the sponge and settling for however much dribbles through to the glass. The common sense solution is to remove the sponge. The standard Democratic response is to pour more water onto the sponge.
It's ironic that the Democratic Party has become so dependent on the public school unions that is opposes policy innovations like , The Democratic Party defines itself to a large extent by a very vocal commitment to helping poor and minorities -- the members of our society who are most harmed by the failed public school system Yet, the Democratic Party has become so dependent upon the public school unions that as a party it opposes policy innovations such as school vouchers that provide poor students a ticket to a better education and a better life.
Republicans can't escape blame, either. While GOP political leaders overwhelmingly favor school vouchers, suburban GOP voters have -- in California, at least -- been a huge barrier to the kinds of reforms that would provide the most immediate educational relief to poor children.
There were school voucher initiatives on the ballot in 1993 and in 2000. And in both elections, the successful strategy to defeat them was primarily based on stoking the fears of suburban parents that moving to a voucher system -- while it would expand educational opportunities for the poor -- it might hurt their kids' schools.
I don't mean to imply there are no good public schools out there. There are plenty of them. But there are also plenty of public schools that are a disgrace. And plenty of good public school schools that ought to be better, as well as mediocre schools there's no reason can't be good.
Unfortunately for the students consigned to it, we've acquired by accretion a school system that primarily serves itself, and secondarily the students who bring those average daily attendance dollars in their wakes.
I used to think the public school system couldn't just keep getting worse. I believed ultimately some tipping point or critical mass would be reached at which parents en masse would decide they'd had have enough, and would be willing too support the kind of systemic changes necessary to make American K-12 public schools world-class.
I'm much less certain nowadays. The system doesn't get any better. If anything, it gets worse while year after year, the voters reward failure.
My wife and I made our choice years ago. We pay our taxes to support this failed, broken system and sacrifice to put our four daughters through Catholic school. I feel badly for those parents who'd like their children to have an alternative to the public system, but lack the financial resources to provide one even if they sacrifice. In the meantime, I wonder if we'll ever reach that tipping point.
CATEGORY:
At The Trough, FEATURE
Amen!
For all their talk about the poor, the Dems care more about teacher union dollars than providing poor kids with the chance to attend a good school and escape poverty.
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S.
It's very easy to demonize each other isn't it? Liberals want this, they want that. The issue is that public education is a very important part of what our State Government should provide for our citizens. The failure of our education system is not just one sided. There is too much bureaucracy and paperwork and too much being spent outside of the classroom. Taking money out to give to private schools in the form of school vouchers will not solve this problem.
It's also easy to demonize Unions which if they give an inch, usually they lose a foot. The process itself leaves many wary and cynical. It's just not as black and white as you paint it.
Then we've had No Child Left Behind which has been a disaster for the public school system. What the hell is the Federal Government doing telling our States how to run their schools? This unfunded mandate has only helped the downward slide of our public education system.
Then you have lowest bidder mentality which costs the school districts MORE money than they should ever pay for construction and modernizations, it's obscene and this is the private sector taking advantage of public funds.
But just because it's not working as it should doesn't mean the whole thing should be abandoned, I truly believe that the public education system is essential in allowing people the upward mobility that Republicans so often tout.
How about this for something new, it would be wonderful if we could work together to figure out how to lower costs outside of the classroom and raise quality in the class room. I think we should reject NCLB as well unless the Federal Government wants to actually put more money back into California than they currently do.
Heather:
I'm all for junking NCLB. I never liked it because I don't think the federal government has any business being involved in education.
I didn't call for the abolition of public education. My critique is aimed at the current SYSTEM.
Taking money out to give to private schools in the form of school vouchers will not solve this problem.
Voucher money isn't "given to private schools." It merely allows the money to follow the child. The voucher goes to the parents of the child, and they make the decision about where to use it. If the point is for children to receive a quality education, it shouldn't matter if they obtain it at a public or private school.
Democrats have no problem with government awarding scholarships and financial aid to students to use at private colleges, but for some illogical reason they recoil at the thought of allowing K-12 students and their parents the same degree of educational choice.
Well said.
The sad part is, the only answer people ever seem to have to the problem is more money. To examine the actual causes of poor academic performance is to turn a mirror on society itself and the never ending downward spiral of time-honored public virtues like decency, honesty, hard work, dedication and the honoring of those in authority.
Parents, not teachers, schools or society, are responsible for the education and training of their children. But we have abdicated that responsibility to the "trained professionals" and now we are are left with the results. Public education worked when public virtues were upheld, but those days are gone and can now only be viewed on old television shows that liberals castigate.
Bring back Leave it to Beaver!
The private school argument is always a non-starter, due to the fact that private schools aren't obligated to take students it doesn't wish to, while the public school system is designed to educate all students. Thus, it is an easy matter for private schools to appear to offer superior results by cherry-picking the better students from the public school pool.
Most public schools are as good as the community that surrounds them. The programs at schools like Uni, Brea, Los Al, Troy and such are much better than the average private school in terms of leading academic achievement. There is no school in the state, and few if any in the nation, that can match Troy's science program.
Jubal - I can't believe you said that, the money will end up in private education no matter how you want to justify it.
I have a five year old going to Kindergarten in September and both my husband and I thought of private school but we felt that if we were to say we believe in quality public edcation for all, we needed to send our daughter to a public school.
8AF - Exactly and then there is the issue that those parents who can afford private school or who wish to spend the money to send their children to private school will be involved in their children's education in a different way, it will also affect test scores and results.
There is just no easy answer to it from either side really but I don't see how cutting funding will help public education, especially when those cuts mean higher teacher to student ratios and the loss of arts and music programs.
Thus, it is an easy matter for private schools to appear to offer superior results by cherry-picking the better students from the public school pool.
I've been hearing that same, worn-out canard for almost 20 years. It's an excuse for mediocrity.
It's presented as if private schools hold recruiting fairs at public school campuses, browse through test results and send invitations-to-attend to the best and the brightest.
Puh-leeze.
Student populations at the vast majority of private schools aren't much different than the student bodies at nearby public schools.
Yo could apply your cherry-picking argument to Troy High School, which doesn't limit itself to simply the surrounding population.
Private schools are able to produce results in a variety of communities, urban or suburban, wealthy or poor. In cities where voucher systems have been introduced, the same kids who have failed academically at conventional public schools somehow manage to succeed at a voucher school.
The problem isn't the kids. It's the system they're forced to learn in.
Jubal - I can't believe you said that, the money will end up in private education no matter how you want to justify it.
I can believe it. What I can't believe is this illogical distinction voucher opponents make.
Currently, the tax dollars follow the student and are "given" to the public school the student attends. But a student's choices about which public school they attend are restricted to whichever school's attendance boundaries the student lives in. Yes, the student -- or really, his/her parents -- can beg and argue with district headquarters for an intra-district transfer.
But by and large, attendance boundaries prevail.
Under a voucher system, the money continues to follow the student -- the difference is the student is given a much broader range of schools to choose from.
Furthermore, the amount of money following the child under voucher systems is typically less than the ADA allotment that would follow the same student to an ordinary public school.
Also, there'd be nothing to stop conventional public schools from reinventing themselves as voucher-redeeming charters, or as traditional charter school as we now know them.
If you want to demonstrate your belief in "quality public education" by sending your child to public school, by all means do so. But don't impose your choice on other parents who would like something different for their children.
"we felt that if we were to say we believe in quality public edcation for all, we needed to send our daughter to a public school.
OMG! Only a liberal would choose public school for political reasons, instead of what is best for their child.
Jubal's right. If you want to make some PC decision to offer your child as a human sacrifice to "quality public schools" then knock your self out. But don't impose your preferences on everyone else.
I've been hearing that same, worn-out canard for almost 20 years. It's an excuse for mediocrity.
Maybe because it isn't a canard. Can you detail for us how many special needs students are taught at private schools? How many disciplinary cases are kept and taught in private schools? Or how many students that just can't make it through the program and are either asked to leave or withdrawn by their parents due to financial reasons?
Once again. Public schools don't get those options. And consequently, the remainder of the pool is skewed to accomodate those students.
Jubal - I can't believe you said that, the money will end up in private education no matter how you want to justify it. - That was me, it was not meant to be anon.
This is what gets me, how am I imposing my choice on other parents? There has to be a sense of shared responsibility in our community if we are going to have any success as a society. When conservatives put out the canard that the only way to improve public school is to flee from it in droves it misses the whole point of why we have public education.
Just because it doesn't work doesn't mean it should be sold out by the privatization of education by our Government. And this is not an anti-privatization rant, there are many things that should be kept to the private sector and parents should have the choice to send their children to private schools but not at the cost of public schools.
It's obvious that something needs to change to help public education but I don't think vouchers will be the magic bullet that you make it out to be. I'm not going to say I have the answers but I also can say that I don't think vouchers is one of them.
OMG! Only a liberal would choose public school for political reasons, instead of what is best for their child.
It's not political! It's about caring about our community and partcipating in it. We will be active parents and we will be hands on when it comes to our daughter's education. If anyone is going to serve in public office and not send their child to public school because they don't think it's good enough for their child, then maybe they need to do something about public education? What's so awful about that!
I know I've stepped into the lion's den and I mean no disrespect, there is a basic ideological difference of opinion here that cannot be ironed out over comments in a blog, but imply that I would deliberately do something that I thought would be HARMFUL to my child merely to prove a political point ignores the basic fact shared by all Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians, we all want what is best for our children and to imply otherwise is just downright cruel.
I guess I should disclose that my husband is running for State Senate as the DEMOCRATIC candidate in the 33rd and although I'm married to him, what I write on blogs and what I say personally is not a representation of him as a candidate. He can only speak for himself.
8AF:
Special needs students are legally entitled to have their needs met. When local public schools can't do it, then they can't go to a specialized private school -- and the taxpayers pick up the tab.
I don't hear liberals screaming about that -- even though that is a de facto voucher system.
How many disciplinary cases are kept and taught in private schools?
Private schools work with the students and the parents to get the kids back on track. they don't dismiss them will-nilly. I went to Catholic school for 12 years. I've had my kids in Catholic schools continuously for the last 16 years. I've seen private schools in operation for mnany, many years. Kids aren't just booted out, but given multiple opportunities the correct their behavior.
Public schools also get rid of students they can't handle. It's called continuation school. Or just dropping out.
This is what gets me, how am I imposing my choice on other parents?
Let me put it this way, Heather. The government compels me to send my children to school until they are at least 16 years old. The government taxes me for that purpose.
But if I don't like the schools to which the government says I have to send my kids, then my education tax dollars no longer provide for my kids' education and I have to dig further into my own pocket to provide them with the education I'd like them to receive.
Those championing preservation of the current system (which was originally inspired by the 19th Century Prussian public school system), based on gauzy notions of "shared responsibility," are imposing their choice -- their vision of what public education "ought" to be -- on me. I don't want to send my children to mediocre public schools. The present system -- and by extension, those who support it -- takes choices away from parents who are unable to overcome the restrictions imposed by the public school system.
I am simply advocating that parents should make the decision about where there children go to school, and that the tax dollars follow that child. That's how community colleges function (the minor fees don't come close to covering the cost of educating the students), and there's no controversy about that.
Just because it doesn't work doesn't mean it should be sold out by the privatization of education by our Government.
For starters, I'm not advocating "selling out" to "privatization." I'm advocating moving away from a one-size-fits-all system. We'll still have public education: school will continue to be compulsory, citizens will still be taxed to provide for K-12 education. Vouchers are just a different way of attaching the education dollars to the student, and giving parents a wider range of options to find the school best suited for their children.
But if something doesn't work, then we ought to get rid of what isn't working. Heather, what is your alternative? Under the current system, you have families forced to send their kids to crummy schools because they can only afford to live in a crummy neighborhood. Why not attach those ADA dollars to the children in the form of a voucher and let those parents send their kids to a better private school? After all, what's more important: that those kids get a good education, or that the system get the money?
Heather, what is your alternative?
I wish I had an answer, I really do. It used to be that California had an amazing public education system. When Republicans just point their finger at the failure of the system that is underfunded and blame unions, etc. it doesn't change one thing at all. We just find ourselves butting heads and sticking to the party line no matter what.
I am an Obama supporter and I know where I live, most of my neighbors are Republicans, I would much rather spend time figuring out how to fix public education with them and the other issues that face our community rather than just pointing fingers.
I don't want anyone's child attending a mediocre school either! I just don't think vouchers will solve the problem and we will have to agree to disagree.
I sincerely appreciate the respectful conversation, thank you.
It is time to vote for change. As in my past two campaigns, a key position in my race for the state assembly is support for a privatized school system with a voucher.
With the passing of Milton Friedman in 2006 I have decided to make his program my program this year and will try to get his foundation as much publicity as possible.
So if you want change in education, start voting for it. If you still feel inclined to vote for Diane Harkey, make her earn your vote by taking a pledge to fight for a move to privatized education.
For more information on privatized education, please visit "The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice."
Andy Favor
73rd Assembly District Candidate
www.AndyFavor.com