Lynnell Mickelsen wrote:
> In watching Michael Atherton's responses to various posts on
> public schools, I am struck by his absolute insistence that public
> schools are a failure--no matter what response he gets from School
> Board members or parents or anyone.
I believe that my analysis of the state of the public schools is
correct. If no one provides me any valid evidence to the contrary,
why should my views change?
Whether the public schools are successful depends on if you are looking
down from the top, out from the middle or up from the bottom. The
upper classes care little about the public schools because they don't use
them. The middle class has the liberty to be ambivalent because they
have some degree of choice, as well as complex support networks.
That leaves the lower classes who are stuck with the worst schools in
the country. We can never be a free society if we do not provide social
mobility for those born into poverty. Education is the key.
Because of an unusual set of circumstances I have experienced the
American education from each of these societal levels, which
is why I am so insistent on reform. Education was almost my
demise, but has become my redemption. I have stood on the
edge of the societal toilet. Without a second chance I
would never have made it out and education was my escape
route. I want this option to be available to all Americans and
I don't really care how we do it. I support vouchers because
I don't believe that the public schools have the ability to make
the radical changes necessary to fix themselves. However,
I would prefer to see the public system improved, because
I feel that it provides us a shared national identity. Those of you
who have been following this thread should realize that I have been
aruguing for improvements in the public schools not for vouchers.
> From my experience, this endlessly dark, destructive view of
> public schools usually isn't just personal pessimism. It's a
> deliberate conservative strategy: repeatedly say public schools are
> an utter failure, then push towards privatizing them.
So I'm a conservative...but the Republicans would disown me. I
support gay marriage, a women's right to choose, and an end
to the drug war. I do not identify with either party, because
neither has a coherent political philosophy. I am most closely
aligned with libertarian philosophy, but contrary to the party
line I believe in a larger role for govenment in the business
sector.
> Of course, the vouchers Republicans propose aren't enough to
> buy poor kids a good, private education. But these vouchers can open
> the door for wealthier people to send their kids to private school
> with public funds. This is, in the end, what the game is all about.
>
> It's true some struggling students do better in private
> and/or charter schools. But it's in no small part because they have
> parents who are passionate enough about education to actively seek
> out and apply for these special schools. (An interesting aside
> though: in Texas, the charter schools have turned out to be far worse
> academically than the much-maligned public schools Last year 80
> percent of Texas students in public schools passed the basic state
> test versus 37 percent of the students in charter schools. And it was
> a really dumbed-down test.)
>
> The more interesting, broader question for voucher proponents
> is how private schools would deal with the more difficult
> students--the ones who arrive in school straight from a juvenile
> detention facility, who have serious emotional, mental or physical
> disabilities and whose parents aren't going to fill out the
> application, much less show up at the school when their kid
> misbehaves.
I don't want these students in the regular public schools negatively
impacting the education of others. In my day there were "continuation"
schools for disruptive kids. There are already a number of private program
to deal with troubled kids. If an effective voucher program was initiated
then someone would probably start a program for them.
> It's funny, but every time I propose that private schools
> take on these kids and that we have an honest, fair competition with
> private and public schools each working with the same mixed
> populations, the conservatives tend to get pale and run for the
> doors. As one lovely Republican parent whose kids go to St. Paul
> Academy told me, "I will NEVER allow those kind of students at my
> children's' school." My, my and he had just been regaling me about
> the glories of opening the schools up to free market competition.
Because the presence of these kids in mainstream classrooms is
not conductive to quality education. I know because I was one
of them.
> This spring I've wondered about the Republican attacks on
> education coming out of our state House --much of which is
> specifically aimed at Minneapolis (and St. Paul) schools. So I asked
> my state Senator, Myron Orfield, when did the Republican party
> decided to assault the schools? I mean, I'm 44. I don't remember the
> Republicans of my youth trying to bring down public school systems.
> And what's the political pay-off since 90 percent of the kids in this
> state attend public schools?
It is unfair to classify all conservative calls for school reform as "attacks."
> Myron says the attack on public education comes, in part,
> from a highly ideological view within the Republican party that ALL
> government must shrink. In the past, Republicans focused their wrath
> on welfare mothers. But with welfare now making up only 1.8 percent
> of the state budget, it's sort of a moot point.
The welfare system (ATD) was a disaster. It was the best example of
good intentions gone bad that I can think of. I believe that welfare reform
did greater good than the welfare system itself ever did.
> Education, on the
> other hand, makes up 30 percent of the state budget. If you're a
> conservative committed to the theology of shrinking all government,
> schools are your natural target---and city schools are where you
> begin because there's a lot of poor, minority youth.
Interesting that this statement is in a reply to my post, given that
the basis of my argument is the failure to serve minority youth.
> Of course, liberals have their own role to play in this
> drama. We have plenty of kids who are doing well in Minneapolis
> schools. But we have plenty of kids who are failing-- mostly
> chronically poor minorities, especially African-Americans. Privately,
> almost everyone will acknowledge that a huge percentage of these
> failing students are coming from chaotic, disastrous homes. Some of
> the chaos isn't the parents' fault. A medical crisis, the lack of
> affordable housing and the impossibility of getting by on
> minimum-wage jobs can throw any family, no matter how hard-working
> and well-intentioned-- into a horrendous tailspin.
This focus on social programs and the home as the source of failure in
education tends to de-emphasize the positive and active role that school
administrators can play.
Throughout your post there has been a lot of talk about the conservative
conspiracy to dismantle the public schools, but few suggestions on
how to solve the fundamental problems of public education. I will
continue to insist that the schools are failing to provide quality education,
(take a look at the numbers again) because it is more difficult to solve a
problem while people deny it exists.
Michael Atherton
Prospect Park
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
