Our Views: A challenge for reform

The New York Times recently reported that enrollment in nearly half of the nation’s larger public school districts has dropped steadily over the past five years, a trend due at least partly to the availability of charter schools that offer parents alternatives to traditional public schools.

Enrollment in the New York City schools, the largest district in the country, was flat from 2005 to 2010, but both Chicago and Los Angeles lost students. Declining birth rates and competition from charter schools were cited as factors.

These numbers probably won’t be surprising to champions of charter schools and critics of the status quo in public education. Charter schools were designed to offer alternatives to conventional public schools, and their creation was driven by dissatisfaction with the quality of public education. Given that reality, the migration of children from traditional public schools to charter schools seems like the logical expression of how education reform is supposed to work.

Ideally, the emergence of new competition for students should drive public schools to do better. “Education has gotten to be almost a sales job,” Susan Chard, a public school teacher in Mesa, Ariz., told The Times. “You want to provide reasons for parents to bring their children to your school.” Chard’s school closed because it lacked students.

Chard’s comparison of education to a marketplace should resonate with school reformers who believe that market incentives are the best way to drive constructive change in public education. That premise rests at the heart of new changes in public education advanced by Gov. Bobby Jindal. The governor gained approval for a program to offer more vouchers to public school students so that they can transfer from troubled public schools to private and parochial schools. Supposedly, that new program, coupled with the presence of charter schools, will encourage public schools to improve.

The Times story raised an interesting issue, though, that Louisiana residents should consider. As students leave troubled schools, what happens to those left behind? Not all students are candidates for charter schools or public schools. Some students have disabilities or other special needs. Other students have parents who are too disengaged to consider alternatives to the troubled school their child attends.

As The Times noted, as public school districts lose money because of declining enrollment, they have fewer resources to handle a growing proportion of students who are typically more difficult to educate. These school districts also have less money for the kinds of marquee programs, such as instruction in art, music and technology, that can help them draw more middle-class families back to the public school system.

That dilemma hasn’t really been discussed in the debate about public education reform in Louisiana, but it needs to be.

Comments

1) Comment by ScotB - 09/08/2012

I agree that the parent is the biggest part of the equation, tradewinns. I just don't know how you could hold financial assistance to the parents hostage without risking the well being of the child. With so many kids being born to single mothers without a father, I just don't see much hope on the horizon. I agree with world renowned economist Milton Friedman that attaching the funds to the child will work best in the long run by encouraging competition. Most people will agree that competition encourages improvement. With public schooling, we have seen funding increase dramatically, while results have decreased even more dramatically over the past two decades. I think a gradual change to this system in Louisiana is exactly the right way to go and commend governor Jindal on taking the first steps. This will allow the private system to grow to accomodate additional students and also give the public system in some areas a chance to improve to retain students. But, in the end, the greatest school is a poor substitute for a decent parent.

2) Comment by tradewinns - 08/08/2012

traveler: yes we must educate our young. that being said, how we do it is the unanswered question. there are those who believe the public education profession have to do it; then they're those who believe in private, religious, whatever group is the way. no way will work if you do not have the parent(s) behind their child being educated. to think it is someone else's job to educate your kid is wrong. it is the parents job to ensure their child gets the best education possible, that entails the parent to ensure their child is doing what they are suppose to be doing in and outside of school. a child is suppose to be prepared to learn by doing their homework at home and discuss it in class. if your child is doing neither, they are the ones holding the rest of the class back from learning. politicians need to be involved to pass laws MAKING the parents perform their parental duties for the betterment of society. i propose a system of fines (monitary) WHICH WILL BE PAID THROUGH DIRECT PAYMENT OR REDUCTION OF ANY PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. there should be zero leeway in payment, the rich, middle class or the "poor" all must pay. it may be harder on the "poor", but they need the offered education more than the others to correct their situation. i doubt you can find any rich kids in public schools. and if a middle class student gets fined a couple of times, their parents will correct the situation quickly.

3) Comment by DMJ - 08/08/2012

Jindal's reforms (whatever you may think of their merits) were never intended to improve public schools. They were intended to kill them. Think about it.... closing schools, taking money away from them and giving it to private schools (some of which teach young-earth, creationist science)... Do these "reforms" sound like they were intended to HELP public schools?? Of course not.

4) Comment by Traveler - 08/08/2012

Rgeraldwallace: we MUST educate students because little children are too young, too inexperienced, too helpless, and too vulnerable to know the importance----the life-long value---of an education. We MUST education students because an uneducated populace is prone to a future of poverty and crime, which drags our entire society down. We MUST educate students because an uninformed populace is fodder for self-serving politicians and dictators. I assume that the students to whom you refer are those high-school students who are routinely truant and/or create havoc in classrooms. You're right----they're a serious problem and we need to solve that problem. But let us never abandon the responsibility that we all have to the next generation to leave this world a better place than we found it. Many great American citizens started out in situations of poverty and ignorance, but the commitment of teachers and community members sustained them so that they were able to lead productive lives and make wonderful contributions to this country.

5) Comment by [e-mail] - 08/08/2012

Hey, 8point6; maybe the crime rate is surging because students who are supposed to be in school find it more lucrative to do something else.

6) Comment by [e-mail] - 08/08/2012

Another surge of school "reform"? This is nothing but a catch-phrase that signals another raid on taxpayer money to fund more of the same bad situation; until the cycle of public union-politician-educator is broken there is no use pouring more money down the drain. Where does it say that we "must" educate students who don't want to be educated? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink no matter how much money you throw down the drain. No more "reform" of what's not working; discard it, remove all traces, and go forward with common sense.

7) Comment by Jack_Cause - 08/08/2012

I've heard this dilemma presented but it has been ignored, by the legislators who voted for the education reforms, AND the media. What will happen to students who have disabilities or other special needs? What will happen to students who have parents who are disengaged? They will be left behind in school systems with fewer resources. We should be considering reforms like early childhood education, smaller class sizes, health programs, after-school tutoring, summer school, parenting classes...

8) Comment by 8point6 - 08/08/2012

"Enrollment in the New York City schools, the largest district in the country, was flat from 2005 to 2010, but both Chicago and Los Angeles lost students. Declining birth rates and competition from charter schools were cited as factors." Don't you think the crime rate in these cities had something to do with it, also?