Part II: Are public schools unfairly under attack?

January 04, 2006

In this second part of a two-part series, we continue our response to Mark Manley's argument at Thespis Journal that public schools are unfairly maligned.

He writes:

By continually depleting funds from the public education system, mandating that public schools must subject their students to an endless battery of high stakes tests, and by creating a system of mismanaged, inexplicable, and unaccountable charter schools, conservatives in the state of Ohio are trying desperately to starve the public schools and institute a “pay to play” system of public education which does not provide a fair and equitable education for ALL students.

We're not familiar with the political climate in the great state of Ohio, but we can respond to five other points.

"Depleting Funds" The data from 1988 to 2003 don't support this claim. Statewide expenditures for education in Ohio more than doubled (from $8 billion to over $18 billion) while the student body increased less than four percent.

"High Stakes Tests" The best schools embrace standardized testing as a tool to help them teach better. As far as high-stakes testing goes, we're split on the subject. We like the accountability factor, but don't like the arbitrary nature of how schools are graded, and how states don't seem to use longitudinal analysis to compare change over time. None of this is unique to Ohio, though.

"Charter Schools" We're not sure why Mr. Manley described them as "inexplicable and unaccountable" but we'd agree that many urban charter schools are mismanaged. (In a private email, he described the mediocre performance of charter schools in Dayton, and sadly we can report similar findings from Philadelphia.)

But by law charter schools are accountable while public schools are not, in two ways: to the parents, and to the chartering authority (often a school district or state agency). The schools are accountable to parents for all charters have voluntary enrollment. Not so with neighborhood public schools, where parents are often given no choice of schools; the enrollment is allocated based on home address. And the schools have to perform, or at the end of their charter period (usually four or five years) they can be--and have been--shut down. Meanwhile public schools which have been abject failures for decades remain open. (Read more on charter school accountability at USCharterSchools.org)

"Starve the Public Schools" Public schools across the nation have never been richer, measured any way you want: per-capita student expenditures, in 2006 dollars, or in federal funding. A child in Kindergarten in 1988 would be graduating (with a little luck) in 2002. In that same time period Ohio public school spending per pupil went up 226%.

"Pay to Play" This is a poor choice of words. Pay to play usually means that unless a contractor or corporation pays cash (usually to some politician's reelection campaign), they can't do business in that city. We in Philadelphia are very familiar with this concept. If "pay to play" instead means publically-funded vouchers, then by all means we're for it. (See our Vouchers archives for more stories.) Vouchers simply give poor parents more choices. Education dollars should always follow the child, wherever that child is educated.

The original statement stands: Conservatives in Ohio want to dismantle and eliminate public schools. Politicians that I have helped elect have told me this privately, but they know that the voters are not ready for this solution.

We suspect that the phrase "eliminate public schools" is really a reference to the elimination of the public school monopoly. We support that as well. But the whole concept of eliminating public schools is ludicrous for the simple fact that public schools serve such a huge portion of school students nationwide and in Ohio.

Now if there were a gradual broadening of the educational options available to parents, for example more charter schools, cyberschools, relaxed regulations for homeschooling, and vouchers for poor parents, then over time the public schools would evolve and adapt as needed. But we suspect that Xenia High would remain. If parents aren't desperate to abandon a school now, than the availability of charters, cyberschools, and vouchers won't change that reality.

Let us compare apples to apples in comparing the academic achievements of students in all school systems. Let’s compare several students from several schools with two parents at home who are engaged in rearing the students. Let us compare and contrast the portfolio assessments of students whose parents have a middle class income. Let us compare the students who have one parent or no parent, or who are never fed properly at home, or who may be lacking in appropriate health care. Let us use a rubric or assessment measurement that quantifies the value of an involved parent or two, or put all of these requisite factors into the overused and confusing set of propaganda that is so often misused to bash the public schools.

On this surface this argument makes sense: without taking into account the socioeconomic demographics of students, how can schools be fairly judged?

This is precisely the rationalization that's been used to argue against any accountability of public schools (especially those in urban areas), and it's a red herring. It would be true if socioeconomic status determined one's educational potential, but it doesn't.

Sure it helps, for example being raised in a two-parent home full of books, where everyone speaks the King's English, is certainly going to be a help to little Johnny learning to read and write. But what's the reverse side of the argument? If a child comes from a broken home, raised by a high-school dropout, with more video game cartridges than actual bound books--then are we going to declare that child uneducable?

We say hogwash. For years, schools in the worst of circumstances have performed "miracles" on a daily basis, teaching what some people would call the great unwashed the knowledge and skills essential for further education. Miracles is in quotes, since it's not really a miracle, just focussed hard work, usually using traditional means of instruction rather than Progressive ones.

To name but a few examples:

• KIPP schools specifically target poor, minority neighborhoods in which to work their magic.
• Marva Collins, when opening her own school, specifically picked the dregs of the student population--at times taking in nearly feral children, children labeled retarded, and children far behind grade level--and teaching them.
• Downtown College Prep, the charter school in San Jose chronicled by Joanne Jacobs, specifically recruited C and D students from 8th grade, who would probably not survive in high school. These students, mostly Hispanic, became college bound in a few short years.
• The Frederick Douglass Academy is a public school founded by Lorraine Monroe. It wasn't new, just a new plan for a formerly failing school in a sad Harlem neighborhood. Within a few years, it was one of the best in the city--even though it served essentially the same kids it had when it was one of the worst. (Read an excellent article about FDA by Nat Hentoff.)
• No Excuses by Samuel Casey Carter is a sample of 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools, many of which are public schools. (The entire book is available as a PDF download, and we highly recommend it.)
• Free To Learn chronicles seven charter schools serving children in extremely difficult neighborhoods, yet they turn out scholars.

If these schools can serve the same at-risk populations as other public schools, but do so with dramatically higher results, then why can't these results be replicated? This is one of the points of the critics, not to just mindlessly "bash public schools" but to prod them into doing right by their kids. It can be done, as the above schools show, without a single extra dollar in spending.

I consider Ms. Malkin better than the average fool in the mainstream media. A genuinely fair and balanced approach to news coverage should include the many great things going on in public education every day. Conservatives make this precise political and philosophical agreement with great fervor every day regarding the war in Iraq. Most of the people who criticize so freely and so often, haven’t even set foot inside a public school in many years, if ever.

Last time we covered the "balanced approach to news coverage" angle, but the comparison to the debate over Iraq bears commenting. Iraq is genuinely a controversial topic. Some people think we need to pack up and leave as soon as possible, for any of a number of reasons. Others think we're doing good work there and that we shouldn't leave until the security of that nation is not at risk, using a phased withdrawal as circumstances permit. Either one of these approaches is possible, and either one can be debated by intelligent people.

But the argument over public schools is different. No sane person is arguing that we "pull out of public education" analogous to a speedy withdrawal from Iraq. Rather, some folks advocate that we expand the free market to public education, so that over time it will be transformed and ultimately strenghthened. Again, the debate isn't over whether or not to destroy public schools, but how to reform our current system of public education to best serve kids.

"For every Bret Chenkin, there are fifty or more public school teachers who have their students fully engaged in the learning process more than five days per week. For every case of “liberal indoctrination” there are abundant illustrations of dynamic teachers presenting model lessons rich with innovative instructional strategies that many conservatives would find refreshing. These diligent and meticulous teachers represent the best practice of the pioneering American Spirit. A caring, dynamic teacher is the key to unlocking the door of learning. It should come as no surprise, even to us conservatives, that more than a few model teachers can be found at every public school in the nation.”

No argument here. But the point to the criticism isn't to illustrate proportions of good to evil, but rather to simply root out evil.

"Moreover, it is much easier for the defeatists, these champions of privatization, to take cheap shots at every public school and schoolteacher because of the actions of one.

Again, no one is targeting every public school and schoolteacher. But what's wrong with privatization? Time and time again privatization provides the most responsive model to just about any problem unrelated to national security. Privatization means the free market, and the free market rarely fails.

The prevailing conservative “news” paradigm allows only pessimistic stories promulgated by the mainstream media to constitute the entire vocabulary of news reporting. Conservatives use this one-sided reporting to further their thesis of bad “government schools.”

This seems to go a bit beyond the general principle of "if it bleeds, it leads" and begins to sound like a conspiracy. We refuse to believe in conspiracies.

I am glad that I did not stop reading columns and blogs because there are a few blogs out there that certainly are irresponsible, inaccurate, and unprofessional. There are bad bloggers, bad teachers, bad superintendents, bad politicians and bad journalists to be found throughout the United States. Because all public schools are supported by state, local, and federal tax dollars, every incidence of poor behavior is magnified beyond its breadth and scope and each overblown occurrence makes an easy and ready-made target for the anti-public school alliance which always seems to be lurking in the wings."

And what would such an alliance do? Close all public schools? As discussed before, that is physically impossible. No, the only thing that opponents of bad public schools can realistically do is provide parents with expanded choices. We fully support these measures, for example, charter schools, cyberschools, deregulated homeschooling, and vouchers for poor parents.

A real, meaningful, and authentic discussion of reform in the public school must begin with a discussion of all things done well in the public schools and those things that are obvious failures.

We don't need to discuss all things done well just to balance out discussion of failure. It should be possible to root out failure all by itself. Unfortunately, Progressive Educators have so filled the ranks of teachers and administrators that even discussions of things done well have been clouded by fuzzy logic and fuzzy data. This is why we try to highlight stories of real success, especially in poor urban areas.

Finally, there is one more issue that I have raised that is never addressed by the critics. This comprehensive philosophy should provide a basis for reform, and promote a scholarly, essential, and consequential topic for further discussion.

While I am a strong advocate of portfolio accountability and comprehensive assessment for public school students and teachers, and I believe that as a nation we should aspire to the ideal of allowing competitive market forces to assist us in creating stronger public schools, I will also vigorously support strong public schools as the foundation of our republic and the hope of future generations. As with many institutions in our society, there is room for significant improvements in the public schools.

We fully agree that there is plenty of room for improvement in public schools. However, responding to pointed criticism by entering a defensive crouch will only polarize the opposing sides. It is only by responding well to criticism (especially criticism which is true) that we can have a debate that will lead to improvement for our schools.

In closing Mr. Manley mentions probably the most important facet of public school reform: "allowing competitive market forces to assist us in creating stronger public schools." Bravo.

Competition builds strength. Let the debate continue.