What is the purpose of a public education today? Are we truly ready to educate the masses and then be subject to the political decisions they will make? How would it affect the existing political stalemate? Would educated voters increase the numbers of the Tea Party, or add to the roles of registered Democrats or Republicans? Do we really want a system that will generate free thinkers, or are we leaning more toward institutions that will perpetuate a particular set of values?
The science of education exists. We know how children learn. It is not a mystery. If children and schools are failing, it is not because we lack the knowledge to provide them with the proper education. It is because we refuse to provide them with the resources and the opportunities they need to succeed.
There is ample evidence that the very children who are considered at risk of failing because they are immigrants, poor, colored, speak a language other than English, have a learning disability, or are physically impaired can—and do—learn in the appropriate environment. Equity is not providing the same thing to every child, but rather providing each child with what he or she needs to learn. Are we ready to do that, and to bear the cost it would entail? With some exceptions, the answer to that question has been a resounding “no.”
The way education is funded in America ensures the preservation of the status quo. The quality of education in any community can be predicted by its ZIP code. The higher the wealth of the community, the better the system of education. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was an attempt at equalizing the playing field by pushing federal dollars toward impoverished communities—but at a mere average 8 percent of a school district’s revenue, this federal share of education funding is not enough.
Property taxes generate the bulk of school dollars, and the wealthier the community, the more dollars generated. We see more attempts by parents to illegally place their children in the schools of adjacent communities, where the quality of education is superior to the schools those children should rightfully attend. On a grander scale, the city of Nashville recently engineered a vote that would merge its schools with those of the wealthier Shelby County in an attempt to garner greater resources for its students.
Data from the National Assessment for Educational Progress have demonstrated consistently that children in the free and reduced lunch program achieve at higher levels when they attend a school where the concentration of free and reduced lunch children is less than 10 percent. Conversely, the academic performance of free and reduced lunch children in schools where the concentration exceeds 90 percent is the very worst.
The analysis of why this is so is beyond the scope of this column, but suffice it to say that elements such as teacher quality, environments conducive to learning, adequate resources, and community support play a major role. It is important to note that there are exceptions to the rule, and there are many schools with large concentrations of children in the free and reduced lunch program where the children thrive academically—but we know they are the exception to the rule, the outliers, and not in sufficient numbers to overcome the achievement gap.
If the purpose of our public schools is to strengthen and preserve our democracy, then we should not fear the impact of an educated populace. If, on the other hand, we want to preserve the status quo, we want to preserve the existing social order, and we do not want the scales to tip, then we will not see transformation. Solutions will be proposed that will do little to change dysfunction where it exists, and the persisting failure will be used to continue to beat educators until their morale improves.
Daniel A. Domenech is executive director of the American Association of School Administrators.
- 2 ways to support eRate modernization - May 19, 2014
- A college readiness tool that every district should use - January 2, 2014
- Time to focus on the real education problem: Poverty - October 3, 2013
Comments are closed.