AlmostWorthKnowing.com...

Almost Worth Knowing: Addressing Public Schools

The following is for a presentation for one of Katie's classes. Her assignment was to argue against redefining public schools. Interestingly, this debate does address some of the differences between Senator Obama and Senator McCain's views on tackling the problems with the American school system, with the latter support redefining public schools.

        While Americans have always been instinctively attracted to the idea of change and choice, there has recently been a call for innovation in the face of a failing public school system. Yet, redefining public schools would be an empty solution that does not address many of the actual problems that cause educational inequality. The article, "Redefining Public Schools,” by Kearns and Harvey, asserts that change, in a number of ways, is necessary to improve schools. The primary change that they allude to is finding innovative and transformational leadership that is willing to provide more options for education. At the same time, they insist choice should be injected into the system, to allow for people to choose which education to receive. The definition of public schools would become “any nonprofit entity willing to be accountable for educating our children," motivated because, "by doing so, these organizations are acting in the public interest.”
        Yet, Kearns and Harvey are already acutely aware of the flaws in their proposals. They question whether this new system will work, or work better than the old system, and answer, “only time will tell.” This seems less like a plan and more like an experiment to see what would happen. Kearns and Harvey claim that one of the existing problems is a lack of common standards (i.e. different states disagree on what reading and math levels students should reach by certain grades); however, they want to allow non-profit organizations to come up with innovative new ways to educate students to these standards, with flexibility in implementation methods. Assuring that the “[entities] accountable for educating our children” are non-profit does not necessarily ensure that these organizations are reliable. Inevitably, some will have better resources than others, and despite not having a financial prerogative towards helping one group or another, these organizations will still be biased towards certain social goals or demographics.
        Public schools may not become financial entities, but it would not be far off to imagine that the non-profit organizations willing to take accountability for childrens education may simultaneously be advancing other motives. Coca Cola, for instance, is often willing to donate to school systems, in exchange for advertising space within school grounds. At the same time, would a school sponsored by McDonald’s be better funded than a school sponsored by Burger King. Allowing for sponsorship from non-profit sectors of traditional corporations seems like the natural progression of such a plan. Feed, a novel by M.T. Andersen, deals with such a dystopian future, in which schools became overcrowded and under funded, and the government was forced to turn towards commercial entities to run schools. While these commercial entities continued to teach subjects such as reading and mathematics, other subjects were added to a student’s developmental curriculum, including buying practices and accessorizing. Essentially, this could be a foreseeable problem because the term non-profit organization is an ambiguous one, which fails to address such subtle schemes as advertising or promoting brand recognition. Ultimately, allowing for certain organizations to be in charge creates the same sort of variance that Kearns and Harvey want to avoid.
Furthermore, the simple perception of choice still fails to address the inherent socioeconomic differences that plague the current system. Simply attending a better school does not deal with other factors like poor health care, residential discrimination, poor housing, domestic difficulties, and transportation, which can impede an individual’s learning capabilities. Erika Szostak, of the Huffington Post, points out:

Public school choice is an illusory choice, particularly for people who have limited resources. Let's say you did have the option of going where you wanted to go. How are you going to get there? Are there going to be enough good schools within your area even if you had the means? Are you going to make private schools relax their restrictions? If you do have this terrific school and everybody flocks to it, are you going to provide extra resources to that school?

Such a plan would require intervention in the market in all kinds of ways. Certain institutions would require additional monies, means of transportation, and various subsidies for schools with special needs populations. At the same time, schools that are not frequently “chosen” for attendance may decline in quality, until they are unacceptable and forced to close or placed under new management. Such an eventuality would be severely detrimental to students in attendance at the facility. Kearns and Harvey insist on transformational leaders who would self-regulate, but a little foresight makes it clear that public involvement is inevitable.
        Adopting such plans as these simply seems like grasping at straws: seeking a radical new system because the current system is not perfect. Working with and improving the current system would be a more efficient way to use resources and take advantage of the familiarity with something firmly established. Within the current educational system, common goals can still be promoted. However, maintaining government oversight, rather than turning towards non-profit entities, will allow for better progress towards these goals. Innovative teaching methods can be sought in the form of new classes or enthusiastic teachers, reducing the size of classrooms and addressing a student’s individual needs. Rather than seek all new leadership, money could be relegated to poorer districts to attract these better teachers with increased salaries. Even the help of non-profit entities can still be sought, though not in the form of restructuring; if these organizations have a serious desire to improve the nation’s educational system, their financial and experiential aid is certainly welcome.