Comments on Public and Private Education
by: David LewisEditor, The Tiger:
The Tiger’s Point/Counterpoint debate on privatizing public education did not mention the extent to which the current argument is about things other than education, such as the merits of public versus private solutions to problems. Indeed, public or private partisans often see entirely different things as problems. For example, it may surprise some that private schools generally preceded public schools in America, and that public schools were an attempt to reform the narrow vision of the private sector. As Carl F. Kaestle wrote in his essay Victory of the Common School Movement: A Turning Point in American Educational History, “In the British colonies of the 17th and 18th centuries, schooling was not compulsory, not free of charge, not secular, not open to all, and not even central to most children’s education.” Presumably the British thought this was as it should be, reflecting the educational model of a socially stratified Britain; America, by contrast, was to become an experiment in democracy and social mobility, and by the 19th century, the Common-School Movement took hold to promote a new educational mission. That mission, consistent with American democratic principles, was that society is best served when the widest possible population has access to education, both because such schooling provides for an able workforce and enlightened citizenry, and because the individual members of our society have a right to the pursuit of happiness perhaps best assured by a good education. For these reasons, it also seemed appropriate for the expense of broadly available education to be largely borne by the general public through property taxes.
As courts required public schools to become more secular, conservative Protestants established alternative private Christian academies alongside the continuing dominance of Catholic parochial schools. Criticism of the godless public classroom has been met with critiques of Fundamentalist pseudo-science. But more than public/private politics, more than secular/righteous indignation, the debate seems to come down to equity versus fear and money. It is understandable why so many parents want more educational options for their kids; too many public schools have unarguably become dangerous places. Some of this is a result of property-tax funding, with poorer inner city schools having lower per-student allotments than the more affluent suburbs; some comes from limits on discipline, as public schools are less able to expel delinquents; some comes from the inevitable strain and friction of an open door policy, meaning special needs students, English-as-a-second-language students, domestically abused students, all must be accommodated.
One thing is sure, however: Using vouchers to pull money and dedicated students from troubled public schools to private schools isn’t the answer; the students left behind with even fewer resources will have little hope of success. And while there are some very good private schools, the US Department of Education has found that, when statistically controlling for individual student characteristics and school characteristics, testing scores are similar between public and private school students (“Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling,” 2006). There is no clear and compelling reason to help fund private schools with public funds, especially when doing so further undermines public education. We need to rethink public funding sources, support innovations like good charter schools, make student safety a priority, and generally shake things up, but giving up is a betrayal of a public trust. When it comes to education, a democratic society is better off with a prominent and vigorous public option.
Sincerely,
David Lewis
Elliott Professor of Fine Arts
Related posts:
Loading ...