In a piece at RealClearPolitics Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass holds up to scorn any claims of “equity” on the part of Democratic politicians:
Democrats once talked about “equal opportunity” and quoted the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. But now they’ve hitched their wagons to “equity,” which has nothing to do with opportunity but is all about using government to dictate outcomes based on race and gender.
Yet Democrats and progressives see “equity” as the only real answer to redress the nation’s past sins.
And they’re in the business of deciding who will pay for the sins of the fathers, even if that father was born in some land far away, across the ocean.
The Democratic Party’s “equity” argument runs into trouble when confronted with school choice. They don’t engage. They avoid.
I called Nathan Hoffman, a policy researcher at the nonprofit education group Empower Illinois, which supports the opportunity scholarships program.
Hoffman, who is Black, supports school choice.
“We cannot have an ‘equity’ conversation without talking about the most inequitable thing we do with respect to education, which is to force students into schools based solely on the ZIP code they reside in, whether the only way out is to either buy a home in a better neighborhood or buy a seat in a private school,” said Hoffman.
“Those who would say the way we achieve ‘equity’ is by doubling down on the same schools that have failed to teach generations of students to read, write and do math — while they themselves send their children to different (and better) schools are not interested in true ‘equity.’ Rather, it’s an interest in convenient ‘equity,'” Hoffman said.
If President Joe Biden were truly serious about treating Americans fairly, “no matter their ZIP code, race or religion …” there is one thing he could do:
He’d push for school choice.
The reality is that there are relative priorities, the highest priority is being re-elected, and Democratic politicians can’t do that without the support of the public employees’ unions. In the pursuit of that highest priority everything else takes a seat at the back of the bus.
“Hoffman, who is Black, supports school choice.”
Proof positive that school choice must be good. They found some black guy to say so. Used to read on this a bit and the evidence supporting school choice was weak. My sense is that it is a bit better now, but not overwhelming.
Steve
@Steve:
Seems like the only way you want to elevate Black African Americans is as a group, all or nothing. That has never worked.
Looks like Biden will give that another try though.
Because I said I did ntofind citing one black guy proof of some idea? Really? Or because I question school choice?
Steve
The latter.
Then you would know that school choice, especially the use of charter schools has been looked at for many years. What has mostly been found is that student outcomes do not improve. As I said it looks like some recent results have been better but I dont know if that is sustainable or if we have unique systems that cannot be reproduced.
Steve
Why do the well off pay big money to keep their children out of the public schools?
Because they teach to the lowest functioning segment of the class.
Inferior but equal, and equality is the goal, that and the financial security of the teachers themselves, teachers that couldn’t get jobs at private schools.
Yes, I’m probably conflating private schools with charter schools and that’s probably more hope than help but public schools are a dismal choice because of the less socialized and less prepared students dragging anchor on the entire group.
They monopolize educator’s attention and effort to the detriment of the rest.
We could do so much better if we gave up on equality of outcomes.
The notion that charter schools do not perform better is false. The “studies” claiming otherwise are agenda driven and use statistical sleight of hand. For example, it will be reported that there are more public schools on all star school lists than there are charters, without noting that there are more public schools. On a percentage basis there are more charters.
The red herring of self selection is also sometimes bandied about.
Worse, the data are not properly disaggregated. Of course charter schools don’t outperform (I’ll use Chicago area as an example) the fine public or private schools like New Trier, Naperville Central or Benet Academy. But that’s a dishonest comparison. The issue at hand is the performance of charters vs the mostly urban, or at least poor, public schools. And that’s the real question of interest, now isn’t it? The data are clear: charters are much better, both in terms of average math and reading performance and in number of underperforming schools. Stanford’s CREDO studies are just one illustration.
Those protecting their turf, like public sector unions, or with political biases generate and traffic in the statistically flawed studies. However, studies and data aside, it would take a real mental midget to deny that competition does not improve performance, as we witness in almost all aspects of life. The last time I looked monopolies were not models of economic or stated performance goal superiority.
In education, show me spending per pupil 50%- 400% higher than private sector schools and I’ll show you a public school. Anyone paying attention to CPS lately?
I am. The members of the CTU have decided to fight to their last breath to avoid working. They have a legitimate issue but, unfortunately, it was a legitimate issue 30 years ago, too, and somehow never received the attention it deserved.
And I think the CTU members know in their hearts children aren’t missing a damn thing by not being in their schools.
I am always surprised that the charter school debate never involves what is left of the New Orleans Louisiana (NOLA) Public School System, but I should not be.
After Katrina, the NOLA PSS fired all the teachers and was recreated with charter schools. (I am not sure of the status of the teacher’s lawsuit for being summarily fired.) There are still the magnet schools and a few traditional public schools.
@Drew (unconfirmed) is correct, but it does not take a study to understand. Honestly, you must be intentionally ignorant to not understand that a charter school will do better than a traditional school, and the NOLA PSS is proof.
The charter schools outperform the previous and existing traditional (not magnet) public schools. The reason that this is never touted is because charter schools restrict students, and unruly and stupid students are not welcome. These students are shunted off to traditional public schools with the expected results.
It is also likely that the charter schools curriculum is based upon standard tests and the ACT. If these tests reflect actual knowledge, the students must be learning something.
(I have not reviewed the subject in several years, and it may have changed.)
I probably should write on this subject some time. Considering students as a monolith is an error. There are multiple groups: the highest achievers who would do fine without school at all, some of the lowest achievers who will actually lead productive lives with appropriate education and wouldn’t without it, and a vast group in between who might benefit from education, depending on the schools they attend, but probably won’t.
The United States has been engaged for the last century in an experiment in universal education. It looks as though it’s failing. The reasons are numerous including that public education has abandoned its original charter.
The issue has never been a question of whether or not charter schools can outperform other schools. They have often done so. The question is whether education for an entire area is improved bay adding a charter school. What has been shown in the past is that motivated parents (and kids too) put their kids in the charter schools when available. Those were the kids who probably would have done well at the school they left. So charter schools pretty much took better students and/or students with parents who were willing to commit to their kids getting educated. When you looked at the outcomes for an entire area when you added a charter school, overall outcomes did not improve.
The one statistic they nearly always improved was parental happiness. So parents of the kids who got into the charter were indeed happier, but performance by the kids was pretty much unchanged. Also, an awful lot of the “miracle schools’ when looked at closely were hardly miracles, whether touted as a successful model by Republicans or Democrats.
So as I said, I have not followed this so closely for the last few years and I have sen some suggestions of (real) success which might be true, but I remain skeptical.
Dave- To your classifications I would add a fourth group. Those with home lives so disruptive education is difficult and almost a secondary issue in their lives.
Steve