Americans are conflicted by two versions of the “good school.”
after school
On the one hand, people want a well-run, up-to-date facility with every teacher highly-qualified and every student a high-achieving mathematician-scientist-literary whiz. Their parents are behind every effort to make education a high priority-including even $30,000 a year in tuition (in a private school) to provide the best.
On the other hand, since the Puritans landed in New England, a “good” public school has been the backbone of American society. Every child, no matter the ability of the family to pay out of pocket, should have the opportunity to succeed in a well-run, up-to-date facility with every teacher highly-qualified. That’s the mantra, but the tax-paying citizen isn’t willing to pay.
Of course, not all children love school like this utopian picture promises. In any case, what do we end up with?
In the 21st century, the child-citizen can attend a public school, often a crumbling high-rise from the 1930’s in the urban core, or a single level five-finger school like those built in the 1950’s in California, or a fortress-like stone building to protect students from the bad guys in the outside world.
Or the student can be admitted to a parochial school, a charter school (sort of public, sort of private), an independent learning program (like home schooling).
Or sent to a detention facility with a mandated math and reading literacy program.
Or admitted to a private school, improved upon and supported by parents who will do anything to make sure their child gets the best.
The question is, as mulled over in the November 29, 2009, San Francisco Chronicle article by Beatrice Motamedi, “All youths deserve an ‘elite’ school,” why should there be such a discrepancy in the way the public perceives students in a private school and treats the children in a public school?
It doesn’t seem to matter what kind of non-traditional school is under discussion- back to basics charter, Montessori, Waldorf, boarding ‘prep’, parochial-some funded partially with taxpayer money, some by a religious organization, some completely private, those schools are seen as ‘elite’ and deserving of every good thing that can be invested. The picture may not always be accurate, but that’s the vision.
Why can’t that be sustained at a traditional public school?
From my reading, the problem occurs because public schools depend on budgets determined by the economy’s vibrancy that generates taxes and also on the whim of the voter who, in most states and definitely in California, must approve any changes in the amount of taxes. Right now, everyone feels sorry about the lack of light bulbs, mold on curtains, ceiling tiles that fall and send down torrents of rain water onto the computer desks, but can’t bring themselves to actually put cash on the table.
Unless, of course, it’s a non-traditional school without a supposed reliable funding source. Those communities have huge fund raisers like the one held by 30-something hedge fund fellows for the Harlem Success Academy 4-right down the street from the antique four story public school I taught at briefly in East Harlem 40 years ago. (New York Times, December 6, 2009, “Scholarly Investments” by Nancy Haas) I don’t begrudge the money, those students deserve every dime.
Perhaps the reason the money is forked over is a smaller school can be seen and rooted for easily, a sort of ‘hands on’ experience.
In many posts, I’ve commented that each individual school must put its hands on the reform. Let’s hope Race To The Top funds insist on program performance evaluation of reform at the school level. Let’s hope each small community will generate the funding will.
Shouldn’t the “good” public school offer ‘elite’ vocational or technology or college prep models to help students find their way to a job after graduation?