The Tempered Radical

The Geographical Ball and Chain. . .

I'm reading Clay Shirky's new book, Here Comes Everybody.  In it, he explores how technology is changing human interactions---and he shares an interesting example:

In 2007, several conservative parishes of the Episcopal Church in Virginia decided to split from the American branch of their church after an openly gay bishop was ordained.  The parishes chose to align themselves with the NIGERIAN branch of the Episcopal Church---whose views (they believed) better matched their own.

Shirky argues that this shows a shift in our thinking about how we organize ourselves.  Typically, humans have used geography as the primary factor when determining how to join together with others.  In the church example, we've always aligned ourselves with others who were physically close to us AND shared our views. 

Technology has made it possible to align with anyone, however.  While it would be nice for the parishes in Virgina to find others with like minded beliefs who were also nearby, they were able to place a priority on like minded beliefs instead of geography when connecting.

So my question is this:  Will we eventually see similar changes in the ways that people think about schools? 

Think about it:  Right now, people send their students to schools based on geography.  You go to the building that is closest to you, whether you are satisfied with that building or not.   

Is it possible that technology may change all of that and allow families to select schools based on design and ideas that best represent their personal preferences and values INSTEAD of choosing schools based on physical location? 

And if so, how will that change our work as teachers?  What impact will it have on us as taxpayers?  On our nation's guarantee of providing a sound basic education for all children?  On any efforts at all to provide a uniform curriculum?

Whaddya' think?

(Image Credit:  graffitiCN_6765 by Clara Natoli, licensed Creative Commons:  Attribution)

Still More on School Choice...

I don't know if you've been following the conversation that two of my readers Jake and Mike are having over on my "More on School Choice" post, but I've really been challenged by their thinking.  Both are clearly delinating two alternative positions about what is quickly becoming a critical issue in education.  Their thoughts are worth a read for everyone involved in educational policy conversations.

Jake Savage, who blogs over at The Stackable Bards, argues in favor of school choice as a means of driving change in education---and perhaps more importantly, giving parents more control over how their tax dollars are spent---when he writes:

Under the current system, money is taken from everyone and then spent at the government's discretion. Under a school choice system, the same amount of money (or less) would be taken from everyone and then spent at the discretion of each child's parents....[this] gives people more say in how the government spends their money.

Of course, there are methods of school funding that would be even more conservative and free market focused, including tuition tax credits and simply removing the redistributive aspect altogether by eliminating public funds. The latter is not at all likely given the general public's belief in education as a right and a public good. The former has the benefit of enabling more efficient pricing of education, but may also be unpalatable to many.

Regardless, any school choice program is more "conservative" than a system that is entirely government-run.

Mike---who has got to be blogging somewhere because he's brilliant---argues against school choice as a diversion of tax dollars to organizations that are not being held to the same standards as public schools when he writes:

Bedrock conservative principle is absolute minimal government involvement in the personal lives of its citizens. Conservatives generally concede that public schools are necessary and allowable under that principle. Therefore, conservatives have...no difficulty, understanding the necessity of schools, with supporting them through some public means. They may quibble over the best and least intrusive means, but the general practice ruffles few conservative feathers.

One cannot argue that conservatives would then support the taking of the public funds they know are necessary for the schools for any alternate form of education one might prefer....Conservatives know that the power to dissimenate funds is a mighty power, and that when one accepts government funding rather than relying on their own means, they are empowering government and weakening themselves...

School choice is merely one of many euphemisms for the diversion of public tax money to private ends which in some circumstances, might well be unconstitutional...Conservatives are very much for the accountability of government, particularly in its use of tax funds. Giving money to certain favored individuals with few or no means of accounting for its use--and this is exactly what those who support "school choice" want...--is anything but conservative."

Let's continue this conversation.  Where do you stand on school choice?  Leave us a comment to share your thinking.  It'll be fun to see how we polish our positions.  Articulating your point of view will force you to reflect---and challenge others at the same time.  It's a two-for-one bargain I hope you won't pass up!

Armchair Educators and School Reform....

I stumbled onto an interesting--albeit belated--strand of thinking the other day started by the Education Wonks when they wrote:

Why is it that so many would-be EduReformers (who are so quick to criticise our public schools) would never consider going into a classroom and actually work with children themselves?

We weren't the first one to notice....

Some of us who do serve children on a daily basis continue to be amazed at the large number of non-teaching teaching experts that are out there.

Maybe it would do many of 'em some good if these "armchair educators" went down to their local school district, filled out an application, and, if nothing else, did a little substitute classroom teaching.

We think that this person might find such an experience to be enlightening.

Matt Johnston, author of Going to the Mat, replied:

I will tell you why.

I am a taxpayer, I have a constitutional right and a duty to petition the government (that includes school boards, administrator and teachers) for a redress of my greivances. If that makes me an "armchair" edu-reformer then so be it and I will wear the title with pride.

I also can read data pretty well. The data tells me that our schools have not improved in nearly 40 years, that test scores have remained flat and that there are better methods available to be tried. I see evidence of reluctance to try anything new.

As an attorney, if my clients don't like my services, they are free to find other representation. Public school kids don't have that choice and so it is up to us parents and "armchair edu-reformers" to take up the cause--ca ause too many politicians, teachers and certainly the teachers unions have proven unfit for the task.

Now, I genuinely like Johnston. His work is reasoned and thoughtful, unlike critics of education that resort only to spitting venom. And in this case, I think he's got at least one legitimate point: Lack of school choice sentences students in underperforming schools to poor educations with no recourse. There is something inherently wrong in a system where we knowingly overlook the very real fact that some schools are serving children far better than others. Students of poverty deserve more.

We disagree on where the blame for this reality lies. When Johnston argues that teachers have proven unfit for the task, he is pointing fingers in the wrong direction. Teachers working in troubled schools face barriers that are almost insurmountable, attempting to address the social, emotional and academic challenges of children who have been overlooked by a society comfortable with the growing economic gap separating rich families from the poor. What's more, teachers in troubled schools often go without basic resources, time, parental support and professional development in facilities that are crumbling around them.

That's where the Ed Wonks argument that "Armchair Educators" should spend some time in schools carries weight. Once reformers realize exactly how little control teachers have over the results of "the system," they will be able to put the proper target in their crosshairs and offer real suggestions for driving change based on an understanding of the reality of our work.

 

More on School Choice....

Mike, one of my readers, left this comment yesterday on the negative consequences of school choice. I thought it was well worth highlighting because it paints a solid picture of some of the real challenges of school choice as a policy for education reform:

It may be useful to consider that there are very good reasons why our public school system has evolved to its current state. Among them is that running schools in terms of facilities and supplies is extraordinarily expensive. So expensive, in fact, that private business simply can't, with few exceptions, do it properly. Yes, there are those privately funded schools with decent facilities, but those are limited in the number of students they accept, and cannot offer the range of activities that the average public school offers. Indeed, many private schools sue their local governments for access to activites such as sports, band, choir, dance, etc., books and various other supplies for their students.

Should the wildest dreams of the voucher crowd come to fruition, we'd find private schools popping up in church basements, abandoned storefronts, condemned school buildings, and dilapidated warehouses throughout the nation. And who would teach in these paragons of capitalism? People willing to accept starvation wages, perhaps well intentioned, perhaps merely willing to accept the ideology, religious or otherwise, of their "schools." Would there be education requirements for teachers? certification? Criminal records checks? Unlikely, as private schools have no such strictures.

Great! We'll buy computer programs and engage in direct instruction. We don' need no stinkin' teachers!

And in the meantime, public schools will be bleeding money, which will have a significant negative effect on their ability to do their jobs. They'll have no choice--they have to remain open and serve every student who knocks on the front door. Private schools can open and fold as the free market dictates, and they will open and fold with stunning rapidity, leaving wasted years of kid's learning lives in the dust, while true accountability remains with the public schools, on your corner, in your town, taught by your friends and neighbors, and by the school boards you can elect or turn out of office, just as it always has.

Choice? Yes. Parents can make the choice to get involved, positively, in their children's educations and in the operation of their schools. Students can make the choice to be involved in their own educations and to take advantage of the many opportunities their schools daily provide.

There are indeed some fine private schools, but in a voucher laden, free market for private schools, many private school students will find themselves in the same predicament as hour old McDonald's hamburgers: relegated to the education trash bin when those running private schools learn in short order that running a school is not, inherently, a for profit enterprise.

So what do you think? Is Mike on target about school choice? Which of his arguments carry the most weight with you?  Which do you think are fundamentally weak?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts....

Boortz on School Choice...

I'm not sure why, but I've been listening to a lot of conservative talk radio lately. I guess I just like to hear different viewpoints as they give me the chance to refine and revise my own thinking about topics across the political spectrum. 

What's always interesting is the animosity that most right wing talk show hosts hold toward public education. Ranting against unions, pushing for increased accountability, and extolling the virtues of vouchers is standard fare for fellas like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Neal Boortz came across my radio dial this week talking about school choice. Using the example of big telephone companies, Boortz was arguing that competition always benefits consumers.  Boortz's thinking—which echoes the thinking of most school choice advocates—went something like this:

When the telephone industry was deregulated, large monopolies were broken up.  As a result, new features like call waiting and call forwarding were introduced and prices were slashed by companies trying to earn customers. Our lives are now better because we've got a range of providers to choose from and we can switch to new competitors whenever we are dissatisfied with our current service.

Public schools, therefore, should be 'deregulated,' as they are one of America's last great monopolies. If school choice became a real option, new competitors would surface offering improved services for a lower price in an attempt to earn customers. The pressure of competition would lead to increased achievement, as real accountability would finally be introduced into education.

Boortz's thinking resonated with me, considering that I've spent the past two weeks teaching sixth graders the difference between capitalism and communism.  "Capitalism is great because competition leads to better products or lower prices...or both!"  I've said time and again. "Either way, customers benefit."

But there are several flaws in his assumption that competition will work in education. Most importantly, he ignores the consequences of "failing competitiors." As a consumer, I couldn't care less when a company goes out of business. While the owner may end up bankrupt and employees may be intially out of work, the impact of that failure is contained. There are no real implications for those beyond the immediate "store family." 

In education, "failing competitors" are schools serving children. Are we truly ready to let capitalist principles identify the strongest school models—and to watch the weakest struggle—knowing that the education of students is at stake? How do we justify our determination to 'leave no child behind' with the reality that in a more 'business-like' approach to education, some students will be learning in schools that can't compete?

Better yet, does introducing a business model to education further ensure that schools for the poor will never match schools for the wealthy? After all, in a capitalist society, businesses regularly offer higher end services to customers willing to pony up the cash. Can you imagine poor families 'window-shopping' for schools, wishing they could afford something other than the Wal-Mart brand for once?

To use Boortz's analogy, there are millions of Americans who can't afford call waiting or forwarding.  (Who are we kidding—there are plenty of Americans who can't even afford a phone.) If we shift towards school choice, won't "choice" be heavily dependent on socio-economic background?  Are we okay with that as a people?  Is that in the best interest of our country?  Our economy?  Our democracy?