Education in the U.S. has become quite the hot topic, not in the least because of President Obama’s renewed emphasis on education issues such as universal Pre-K and making college more affordable. Education is important. we know this as a growing percent of the population is getting more and more advanced degrees, as a matter of norm.
The issue I want to talk about today is the policy of closing down poorly performing public schools, made popular by NYC Mayor Bloomberg and former D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee. The policy is couched in business theory, which tells us that if something is not working, shutting it down and putting that money towards something that is working is a better use of funds and resources. This theory is not incorrect in itself, but fails to take into account the people, school staff and students, are affected by the process of closing schools down.
Full disclosure, I work at a not-for-profit that partners with poorly performing public schools to help them turn around before their school is forced to close. I have spent a year here as an intern and have decided to stay on as an employee past my year-long contract, because of my belief in their mission. I have seen first hand the difficulties involved in turning a school around, not limited to resistant staff, poor school climate,lack of family engagement, violence in schools, and many other issues involved with having a school where many students are living in poverty. Even with all these difficulties, I sincerely believe that working within the schools and pouring in resources is the best for the students in the end, though the amount of time and money is significant.
When a school under-performs, the school is given a warning and a limited amount of time for the school to improve, before they are shut down. This school is often not given any extra support in order to improve their school, so that even schools with the best intentions cannot do enough to change. At this point, many in a school lose hope and give up. However, WHENEVER a school is slated to close, parents and other members of the community come out to advocate for their closing school. Schools are a part of the community, they define a part of every family that becomes involved in the school. Seeing a part of their community go down like that, with no chance of fixing and getting better, hurts many families.
When schools are slated to close, the school does not allow any new students to enroll, but allows the remaining students stay until they graduate (at least in NYC, not sure about other areas). In this way, the schools “phase out”. Keeping the students in a school that is phasing out understandably causes a fall in morale. How can students place any hope in their education if their government doesn’t, when the DOE tells them they are not worth the effort to improve their schools to give them each a good education. The students are left in schools that are emptying with out of date resources, though they are expected to compete with others in their age range when they move to the next school.
This doesn’t even take into account the hundreds of school staff that will become unemployed, trying to find positions in newly opening schools. In an era where teacher( and other staff positions) evaluations are so often linked to test scores, how are teachers supposed to get re-hired at new schools, when many employers will see that they were last employed in a school that failed? There may be openings at newly opening schools, but this doesn’t guarantee them a position. This kind of job instability creates more stress on school staff and could negatively affect school climate, and in turn negatively affect the students’ quality of life.
Large amounts of research has been done that proves that doing well in school improves chances at later success. I do not believe that this is contested. Because of this, I believe that all children deserve the same chances of later success through equal access to a good education. In those poorly performing schools, interventions can be used to improve school climate, change school-wide policies, teacher trainings, linkages to mental health resources, any number of things to be used to improve the functioning of the school. But all of these interventions take time to work, and oftentimes cost money. Increasing supports in order for schools to change is essential in turning a school around. Taking away resources for schools that are performing poorly should not even be considered as a viable option, if only for the sake of the children.
In the time since school closings have been used in U.S. public schools, there has been not been enough evidence to support that this actually works. The funds that take away from poorly performing schools and channel towards newly opened schools to replace the old school often changes nothing. The new school fails in the way the old school did, because nothing has changed in the way the schools are operated. Because of these failures in the public school system, more and more families are turning towards charter schools, which are privately run, but publicly funded, or more expensive private schools, to ensure a better quality education. It is my opinion that U.S. citizens should not have to turn to these other options to make sure that our children are receiving a good education. Quality education is a right of all U.S. citizens, which is why all students are required to attend school (though it is each person’s right to decide in which way they will educate their children). Families from low-income families fare the worst, because they are most likely to be educated in a poorly performing schools, and therefor be under-educated. Being under-educated contributes a lot to living below the poverty level, keeping certain citizens from a better quality of life.
This issue connects to many other issues that I am concerned with, including welfare, poverty, program evaluation, child welfare, and charter schools. So stay tuned for more posts regarding all of these issues!
Humanist Perspective 