the creation of an unequal, tiered system that allows students to fall through the cracks. These tiers are only created when money and resources are taken away from public schools.The public is slowly waking up to this but more needs to be done to support public education—not to be apologists for stuff that they do not get right, but to be engaged as a public to shape them according to our values and for the common good, as well expressed by John Dewey who viewed our nation's classrooms as "laboratories for democracy." If there is a problem with democracy, as renowned educator, Deborah Meier says, the solution is not less, but more, democracy. Even if they teach government and civic education, charters and vouchers cannot at once undermine democracy and claim to promote it.
Neither are they accountable to the public in the way that public schools are, nor do they want to be. When you as a parent send your child to them—inasmuch as there is no elective body like a school board where you may not only find redress, but also influence its actual direction (in terms of curriculum, pedagogy, policies, practices, etc.)—you've forfeited your role as a public to a market model that reduces you to a consumer.
By robbing us of our own capacity to be agents of social change, producers of culture and history as communities, they also dehumanize us. Not that this doesn't happen in public schools but that they are an arena where we can still obtain voice, power, and influence. All of this closes down with charters and vouchers.
That's why Representative Gonzalez and so many of us are involved in the Texas State Legislature and the State Board of Education, as well as in local school board politics. That's democracy at work that a charter or voucher model of the world is effectively challenging. In short, charters and vouchers equate to the de-democratization of public education—and we, with our tax dollars and our non-involvement—are "paying" for it! (Also read his recent, related post by Linda McNeil, Betsy DeVos’ educational marketplace concept is absurd.)
It's disgusting to see charter school organizations support specific local school board members that take charter money to win races—and to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars—when a local race like this should only be a fraction of this cost. It's also disappointing to see such candidates take the bait either because it's "easy" money or because they drank the Kool-Aid and now they're complicit in the dismantling of public education by approving charter operators entry into our school districts.
And then, at least here in Austin, they serve mostly poor black and brown children and ONLY on the east side while staying away from the west side where public schools serve a largely affluent white population—with exceptions, of course. So if this model is "good" for the east side, why isn't it equally "good" for the west side? This merits a study unto itself, but clearly class politics and white privilege are also at play—a dynamic that charter school advocates exploit by suggesting a kind of education option that is good for these kids—and by implication, never your kids.
Pro-voucher and pro-charter groups and political action committees (PACS) engage in school board races in order to infiltrate school boards to promote friendliness to charters so that they can advance their agenda no matter how seriously this weakens public education for all. If you are truly a champion of public education, you should be able to win on your own merits which should be speak for themselves.
This attempt to infiltrate is what is happening in a school board race right now with Dr. Tony Baez (see earlier post on this), a renowned bilingual education advocate, national leader, and a progressive institution builder in Milwaukee. I can't think of anyone more deserving of this race than him, yet he is in the race of his life against a literal unknown who is getting propped up by a voucher-based PAC.
To counter this trend nationwide, we need as a public to weigh in against those representing this nefarious agenda of getting the public to hand over its hard-earned tax dollars to the pockets of the privatization and charterization movement which is why we should all consider contributing to Tony's campaign at ActBlue. Given all that Tony has done for decades in his community that he now seeks to represent, I will honestly be shocked if he loses this race no matter how much money this PAC puts out. But then we know that democracy is viciously under siege at the moment.
Community-based organizations together with schools and districts and cities can work like we are working here locally via a formal, contractual partnership to operate Academia Cuauhtli (Nahuatl for "Eagle Academy"), a Saturday Academy that serves fourth-grade children from Sanchez, Metz, Zavala, and Houston Elementary, to develop curriculum, prepare teachers to teach it, and offer it to our students at the Academy while making it available to all students across multiple grade levels district-wide.
Education
is the most powerful tool we have. It is the one thing that can
transform lives, break the cycle of poverty and allow us to realize the
possibilities of an equal society.
In fact, quality public schools are like air. We take it for granted but can't live without it.
Even though the vast majority of us understand the power of education and the necessity of a public school system, many incorrectly assume that because we’ve had public schools in our state for so long, they will always exist.
In 2011, all of this was brought into sharp focus during one of my doctoral classes. The professor walked in with a frightened look on his face, saying, “This is the end of public schools as we know it.”
At first, his words seemed extreme. But, after serving on the House Public Education Committee and now beginning my third term in the Texas Legislature, it is clear that his words reflect reality.
In 2011, the Legislature cut $5.4 billion in public education funding and implemented a testing regime that centered accountability on a dehumanizing, ineffective standardized test.
In short, schools would get a lot less money while facing impossible standards. It was as if schools were intentionally being set up to be labelled as failures. Why do you think campuses are now being labeled A through F?
Creating the perception of failing public schools in the minds of the public was necessary to fuel the “school choice” movement.
Listening to the political rhetoric at the state and national level, this strategy seems to have been effective. Instead of a collective discourse on strengthening and funding our public schools, the conversation centers on supporting charter expansion and vouchers.
The expansion of “school choice” translates into the creation of multiple systems, facilitating a structure of separate and unequal.
Charter school quality, however, is questionable. Research demonstrates that, on average, they don’t outperform traditional public schools.
The real problem with “school choice” is the creation of an unequal, tiered system that allows students to fall through the cracks. These tiers are only created when money and resources are taken away from public schools.
In the long term, this approach is unsustainable for a state serving nearly 6 million students.
The unequal distribution of resources, along with the fact that charter schools do not operate under the same rules as public schools, exacerbates the problem.
Charters claim to be “public”, but are actually run by corporations or nonprofits, rather than locally elected school boards that are accountable to parents and the community.
Charters are not subject to the same regulations as public schools. Those regulations include class size limits, student-teacher ratios, and having school nurses and counselors on site.
Also, charters can control enrollment through admission requirements like geographical location, discipline records, sibling priority, academic ability, and through dismissal and expulsion procedures that differ from those of traditional schools. This allows charters to preferentially select students who are less-expensive to educate.
When we fragment the public school system, we create more opportunity for inequity without making any real gains.
If we assume charters are a necessary alternative for some students in a “failing” school – and leave the other students behind – we are arbitrarily picking winners and losers amongst our most precious population: our children.
They need our protection, willingness, and dedication to support the public education system we have depended on for so many years, one in which all children are welcome and served.
I am so proud of our El Paso area public schools. Now more than ever, our community must remain vigilant and active in protecting them.
Just as Texas and El Paso rely on clean air, our future is dependent on the maintenance and support of our public schools.
Rep. Mary González, D-Clint, represents District 75 in the Texas House of Representatives.
In fact, quality public schools are like air. We take it for granted but can't live without it.
Even though the vast majority of us understand the power of education and the necessity of a public school system, many incorrectly assume that because we’ve had public schools in our state for so long, they will always exist.
In 2011, all of this was brought into sharp focus during one of my doctoral classes. The professor walked in with a frightened look on his face, saying, “This is the end of public schools as we know it.”
At first, his words seemed extreme. But, after serving on the House Public Education Committee and now beginning my third term in the Texas Legislature, it is clear that his words reflect reality.
In 2011, the Legislature cut $5.4 billion in public education funding and implemented a testing regime that centered accountability on a dehumanizing, ineffective standardized test.
In short, schools would get a lot less money while facing impossible standards. It was as if schools were intentionally being set up to be labelled as failures. Why do you think campuses are now being labeled A through F?
Creating the perception of failing public schools in the minds of the public was necessary to fuel the “school choice” movement.
Listening to the political rhetoric at the state and national level, this strategy seems to have been effective. Instead of a collective discourse on strengthening and funding our public schools, the conversation centers on supporting charter expansion and vouchers.
The expansion of “school choice” translates into the creation of multiple systems, facilitating a structure of separate and unequal.
Charter school quality, however, is questionable. Research demonstrates that, on average, they don’t outperform traditional public schools.
The real problem with “school choice” is the creation of an unequal, tiered system that allows students to fall through the cracks. These tiers are only created when money and resources are taken away from public schools.
In the long term, this approach is unsustainable for a state serving nearly 6 million students.
The unequal distribution of resources, along with the fact that charter schools do not operate under the same rules as public schools, exacerbates the problem.
Charters claim to be “public”, but are actually run by corporations or nonprofits, rather than locally elected school boards that are accountable to parents and the community.
Charters are not subject to the same regulations as public schools. Those regulations include class size limits, student-teacher ratios, and having school nurses and counselors on site.
Also, charters can control enrollment through admission requirements like geographical location, discipline records, sibling priority, academic ability, and through dismissal and expulsion procedures that differ from those of traditional schools. This allows charters to preferentially select students who are less-expensive to educate.
When we fragment the public school system, we create more opportunity for inequity without making any real gains.
If we assume charters are a necessary alternative for some students in a “failing” school – and leave the other students behind – we are arbitrarily picking winners and losers amongst our most precious population: our children.
They need our protection, willingness, and dedication to support the public education system we have depended on for so many years, one in which all children are welcome and served.
I am so proud of our El Paso area public schools. Now more than ever, our community must remain vigilant and active in protecting them.
Just as Texas and El Paso rely on clean air, our future is dependent on the maintenance and support of our public schools.
Rep. Mary González, D-Clint, represents District 75 in the Texas House of Representatives.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete