I rarely write diaries--part lazy, part other people usually write better ones on the topics I want to discuss. I haven't seen my slant on "failing" schools and feel the necessity to get this rant off my chest.
American schools are not failing, or, put another way, historically, only poor schools, and poor students, failed. Brown v. Board of Ed. forced American schools to integrate. In the South this took a long time--and was avoided by the creation of private Christian Academies. In the rest of America, population segregation resulted in schools with financially poor students, and others with the more advantaged. Most often this was also racial, but not always. I am sure that those children with less money spent inside and outside of school always scored lower on tests. Wealthy White America never paid attention to these failures.
Once Brown v. Bd of Ed. happened, Americans ran scared--"those" kids were going to destroy my child's education. Money was going to be "wasted" on children who should be taught only vocational skills. Heterogeneous grouping was going to water down my brilliant child's achievements. Teachers spend too much time on "those" children.
You get the message, White folk could be manipulated by politicians to seemingly advocate separate but equal education. At first, Democrats proudly stood for integration--enacted Title I programs and enforced Brown. When the Great Society programs were enacted, America was getting to be a fairer and better country. Then came Reagan, who chose to blame the needy instead of helping them. Then came Bill Clinton, a very decent man, but a negotiator. He went along with DOMA and with the criticism of our schools. The Republicans then included criticism of teachers and curriculum.
Their aim was three pronged. First, the scare tactic of blaming "those" students for failing even though so much tax money was spent. Next, they proclaimed that our children were falling behind the rest of the world. Finally, charter schools could provide profit and segregation--which is their favorite, but hidden, agenda.
That Obama and Duncan seem to be going along with this approach is very disturbing. We don't need a common core curriculum. As any reader who lives near a wealthy school district knows, those students have always succeeded--regardless of curriculum. What no politicians today seems willing to say is that poverty has costs. Money might not guarantee success, but it certainly helps pay for tutors. These elite public schools often hire teachers from the same pool of education majors, often at a similar pay scale. As a matter of fact, some elite schools are within less than wealthy school districts--yet their well off students magically create better teachers. In summary, it's not the curriculum that's at fault, it's poverty and segregation.
I moved to North Carolina--where the government treats teachers and students as overly expensive annoyances. Recently a much needed school bond failed because those voters without school children voted it down. No one questioned its need--the area has had large population growth--just questioned paying for the buildings. Another factor in the rejection was how many send their children to Christian Academies. These schools are much less integrated, if at all, and keep their children "safe." Keep them from mingling with "those" children.
To this group, charter schools are a vehicle to get the general population to help with the financial burden of private schooling. The aim is to open a charter school that teaches their values--which I think of, cynically, as more god, less science, as more segregation, less integration. Let me add, I believe many people outside the South, share this goal.
Of course, the profit motive always lurks in the background.