My philosophy of advocacy stems from seeking commonality and building bridges through shared interests and goals. When given a choice I will always look for the positives in any given situation. My politics are solidly independent, particularly when it comes to public education. But bipartisanship - no matter how desirable and appealing politicians may make it sound - is not without its struggles and lends itself to its own particular brand of despair, especially with regards to ESEA reauthorization.
For instance, my heart clearly bleeds for teachers and students desperately trying to cover meet all their curriculum requirements in freezing classrooms, the rusted leaky pipes prone to burst at any time and literally wash away the tangible fruits of all their hard work. All the more so because that was precisely the situation I found myself in less than a year ago.
But managing law school-sized loans on a teacher-sized salary has also taught me the enormous importance of debt-reduction and some level of austerity. I also recognize the precarious economic position our country has found herself in. Increased government spending hasn't restored equilibrium as quickly as we had hoped and time is running out. I suppose the students can wear their coats inside for one more year if it indirectly helps a few teachers keep their jobs.
Which is why I was initially supportive of the Committee's first piecemeal effort at consolidating and/or repealing "duplicative" and "unnecessary" federally funded education programs. I was troubled to learn later that much of the funding eliminated on the basis of duplication (e.g. $88 million for Smaller Learning Communities in public schools, $25 million for the National Writing Project) was said to be covered under Title I (Aid to the Disadvantaged). But if 80% of the nation's schools are slated to fail and don't make the adequate yearly progress necessary to receive Title I funds, are the programs really funded? Will the monies carry over to the next year? I'm guessing they won't. Still, fiscal solvency is the most pressing issue facing our nation and it seemed as sensible a place as any to start filling in the piecemeal puzzle.
I couldn't help but grit my teeth just a little when the Committee didn't then immediately pick up what is undeniably the most important piece of the puzzle: Relief for LEAs from the looming 2011 AYP proficiency targets. And when the second reform bill the committee introduced and passed dealt not with high-stakes testing but instead the financial cultivation and propagation of ... ("Gasp!")... Charter Schools... my liberal heart got the best of me and jumped into my throat. It proceeded to sink somewhere down around my knees and hasn't gotten back up since.
Now before you read my dramatics as evidence of malice towards the institution of charter schools let me first assure you that none is intended. Teachers at charter schools make tremendous sacrifices on behalf of their students, often without the protection of the unions. And some charter schools are making tremendous strides in underserved communities. I have the utmost respect for anyone working to a make positive difference in the life of even one child. Nonetheless I wouldn't be worth my salt as a Title I Educator to deny the tension that exists.
You see, for teachers and administrators at public schools, charter schools are like a younger, more attractive sister. We know we're just as smart as our sibling, she's just bubblier and more popular. And even though her grades are even with ours, sometimes a little worse, she gets all the attention. She even gets lavished with gifts and praise for things we've been doing all along. I mean, really, what's the difference between a charter school and a Smaller Learning Community? Don't get me wrong, we still love our charter school sister, of course. But surely it’s understandable that we might be a little envious, it’s just human nature.
Charter schools are often treated like the favored child, leaving public schools feeling very unwanted and demoralized. Furthermore, the currently proposed program of educational austerity cuts public schools to their very core, while charter schools would emerge unscathed and more vibrant than ever before.
Districts like Liberty County in Florida might not be able to provide transportation or school lunches in the near future. Every school in that district has been labeled as failing and as will lose all of their federal funding by 2014 unless they receive an NCLB waiver. Shockingly, relief for states still hasn't been brought up for discussion in the Committee. In fact, the waivers proposed by Secretary Duncan have been met with resistance and threats of legal challenges.
So what is the exact nature of this vise grip on testing and adherence to these impossibly high proficiency targets? The education community is largely in agreement about the injustice and inadequacy of utilizing standardized tests to determine student progress so what gives? Why, with the economy in chronic disrepair and slash & burn spending cuts the necessary order du jour, is there such unwillingness to set aside, even temporarily, a testing requirement that costs more than $1 billion annually? Why would we spend that kind of money on something we know will go down in history as one of the most extraordinary "fails" in modern times?
Is it possible that allowing all of these schools to writhe and "fail" under NCLB is some sort of dark, twisted cost-saving technique that even I, the thriftiest of public finance observers can't fathom? I certainly hope not... although it would help pay for all those red carpets being rolled out for the charter schools. I guess we'll all just have to stay tuned.
~Kelle Stewart
No comments:
Post a Comment