Hmm ... educational independence. In its most extreme form, this is an
argument for home schooling, is it not? Which I have no quarrel with.
But home schooling seems particularly unsuited to a poor inner-city
population many of whose parents are themselves poorly educated.
Public education is inherently about dependency. Enforced dependency, in
fact. People without children are required to pay taxes to educate other
people's children, who depend on them.
Individual public schools are dependent on the School District, which is
in turn dependent on City, State and Federal masters.
The School District is now administered by the State because it failed
to meet key academic and fiscal goals. A demand has been created for it
to improve, and it has no choice but to depend now, until it does improve.
At this time, too many Philadelphia children seem to lack the demand to
graduate from HS. The School District is required to create that demand
in them. That's because high-school dropouts become highly-dependent adults.
Charter schools may be a good way to go for do-it-yourself, independence
buffs. This option exists and is attracting many working-class
Philadelphians.
But charter schools and independent schools use private-sector
partnerships as well. Any they can get, as a rule.
-- Tony West
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote:
melani outlines one scenario above where penn played an active role in
directing what happened in our neighborhood, real estate-wise,
concluding "if you build it, they will come."
melani sees an irony in that lesson; others see a flip side to that
lesson: "if you create the demand, they will depend."
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
