Congrats, Erika. (Just signed on as a member of Parents Defending Education). Thank you for posting Laura's piece. Wish this could be plastered all ovr NYT, LATimes, Projo, WSJ.
I'm not sure why any demographic information about parents who want in-person publicly funded education options for their children matters to those who are deciding whether or not to offer that option. Weingarten's comments and Laura's clear response reminded me of this quote from Michael Barber's book, Instruction to Deliver. (Barber was the British equivalent of the secretary of education during Tony Blair's administration)
"If they are to be universal, modern public services have to be so good that the growing numbers of people who can afford the private alternative still choose them. This is a much higher bar than prevailed in the twentieth century. It is of decisive importance because, in the long run, the relatively wealthy will be willing to pay taxes for public services only if they use them."
Publicly funded education options should be attractive to and responsive to all Americans, regardless of their race, income, eligibility for special education services, etc.
Weingarten's comments are dangerous because it suggests that if it's OK to say publicly funded schools don't have to respond to rich people, they might also decide not to respond to the needs and desires of poor people. Oh, wait, that's generally what they do now. The rich and well connected get the educational options they want for their children. And everyone else takes what they're given. And when something like chartering public schools, which gives new choice and power to those who couldn't buy or move to get what they want for their children, those in the circles of power feel threatened.
Of course demographics matters to the "public" schools that exist in zip codes where incomes are high, the houses are big, the families are economically and residentially stable as well as socially and politically powerful. Those schools do what those families demand, and overall test scores and outcomes (and incomes) tend to be good. And if the DAs son is found parked in some secluded corner of the park with a little cocaine and a young girl, he'll be sent home with a warning. Those parents tell their school what to do and have influence over school programs and policies. On the other of demographicland the outcomes aren't as good, neither are the incomes, and there is far more instability and insecurity, and far less influence over the schools serving them. In fact, the pressure is often to eliminate the influence of local residents and replace it with mayorial oversight, appointed (not elected) managers...essentially the schools are told what to do by people with little stake or skin in the community or school. The weapons used against the schools that need support are inappropriate standards, high-stake tests, and consequences. Sound logic, proven developmental approaches, and common-sense educational practice are for families that can afford it and their schools are empowered to provide. All carrots one way, sticks the other, and truly public schools (not the manufactured ones) are captive to that paradigm.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I know that in practice the demographics do matter, and that decision-makers give more credence to a wealthy parent than a poor one. I'm suggesting they shouldn't. Every child should have access to publicly funded educational options that help them thrive.
Congrats, Erika. (Just signed on as a member of Parents Defending Education). Thank you for posting Laura's piece. Wish this could be plastered all ovr NYT, LATimes, Projo, WSJ.
I'm not sure why any demographic information about parents who want in-person publicly funded education options for their children matters to those who are deciding whether or not to offer that option. Weingarten's comments and Laura's clear response reminded me of this quote from Michael Barber's book, Instruction to Deliver. (Barber was the British equivalent of the secretary of education during Tony Blair's administration)
"If they are to be universal, modern public services have to be so good that the growing numbers of people who can afford the private alternative still choose them. This is a much higher bar than prevailed in the twentieth century. It is of decisive importance because, in the long run, the relatively wealthy will be willing to pay taxes for public services only if they use them."
Publicly funded education options should be attractive to and responsive to all Americans, regardless of their race, income, eligibility for special education services, etc.
Weingarten's comments are dangerous because it suggests that if it's OK to say publicly funded schools don't have to respond to rich people, they might also decide not to respond to the needs and desires of poor people. Oh, wait, that's generally what they do now. The rich and well connected get the educational options they want for their children. And everyone else takes what they're given. And when something like chartering public schools, which gives new choice and power to those who couldn't buy or move to get what they want for their children, those in the circles of power feel threatened.
Of course demographics matters to the "public" schools that exist in zip codes where incomes are high, the houses are big, the families are economically and residentially stable as well as socially and politically powerful. Those schools do what those families demand, and overall test scores and outcomes (and incomes) tend to be good. And if the DAs son is found parked in some secluded corner of the park with a little cocaine and a young girl, he'll be sent home with a warning. Those parents tell their school what to do and have influence over school programs and policies. On the other of demographicland the outcomes aren't as good, neither are the incomes, and there is far more instability and insecurity, and far less influence over the schools serving them. In fact, the pressure is often to eliminate the influence of local residents and replace it with mayorial oversight, appointed (not elected) managers...essentially the schools are told what to do by people with little stake or skin in the community or school. The weapons used against the schools that need support are inappropriate standards, high-stake tests, and consequences. Sound logic, proven developmental approaches, and common-sense educational practice are for families that can afford it and their schools are empowered to provide. All carrots one way, sticks the other, and truly public schools (not the manufactured ones) are captive to that paradigm.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I know that in practice the demographics do matter, and that decision-makers give more credence to a wealthy parent than a poor one. I'm suggesting they shouldn't. Every child should have access to publicly funded educational options that help them thrive.