send to a friend | print | comment

A word about school choice

Much has been made of the issue of school choice in Pennsylvania, with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Anthony Williams making this one of the centerpieces of his campaign.

Indeed, the comments section on one of my recent posts relating to a totally different subject turned into a discussion about education, with one commenter suggesting that he should get a tax credit for homeschooling his kids, as they’d be out of the public school system, while apparently simultaneously supporting the idea of using other peoples’ tax dollars to send his children to private school where they would be taught “virtue and morals.”

The commenter also goes on to compare anyone who may be opposed to school choice to those who are opposed to abortion, hitting on the foundation of just about every argument put forth by today’s “conservatives” –my tax money shouldn’t be used for those people or those things I don’t agree with, don’t approve of, or deem unnecessary, but everyone else’s tax money should be available to me to use to support the things I want, I need, or I have deemed appropriate. In other words, as Rick Smith put it during my recent appearance on his radio show, they sound like a bunch of petulant children, a crowd who have not yet wrapped their minds around the idea that the world does not revolve around them, that they are not entitled to have what they want when they want it, that their way of doing and seeing things is not the one and only “right” way and that those who disagree are not wrong, evil, or inferior, and that they have not been tasked, nor will they be, with giving explicit approval—or disapproval—of everything that goes on in the world around them.

I don’t have children at all, so shouldn’t I get a break on having to pay school taxes? Why should I be concerned about your kid’s education? Why should my money be used to pay for their private education? Isn’t that a parent’s responsibility? And, much like the argument made against illegal immigration, wouldn’t all of the parents who have to pay out of their own pockets for their children’s education be a tad upset that someone else’s kid is getting a “free ride?” These are some of the same questions I’ve heard coming out of the mouths of these so-called “conservatives” in reference to many other issues.

The truth is that we, as a nation, decided long ago—long before so many of us decided to start pulling in our own directions—that it was in our best interest as a society to see to it that all of our citizens have access to a basic education. That an educated populace is not only preferable but necessary, most especially in today’s global society. And that we, as a people, would ensure that potential together.

That’s what a society is—a collection of people who’ve come together to recognize and understand the interests and concerns they all share—and that’s what a society does—come together to work to address those needs with respect, concern, and consideration for all involved. It would seem some need to be given a refresher course, in either civics or basic humanity, to be reminded of this.

I can understand the concerns of parents in cities, rural areas, or other parts of the Commonwealth where the educational opportunities available to their children may be quite limited. But the current debate is not going to solve that problem. There are simply not enough spaces in “good” schools to accommodate students who are in “bad” ones. In some parts of the state, there may not be any other choices beyond a family’s current school district. How far are we willing to send children to ensure that they are in a “better” school? And how many transferred students can we realistically expect a better performing school to accommodate?

I shudder to think what the criteria may be for choosing which students get to escape the bad schools and which ones will be left behind.

We should be having a whole different conversation about public education in Pennsylvania, and that conversation should be about the way we fund public education in this state. So long as wealthy school districts are financially founded on the wealthy tax bases of their surrounding regions, while other schools are forced to make do with significantly smaller tax bases, there will never be parity in Pennsylvania’s education system.

And for those who would make the argument that that would limit the ability of parents to choose to send their children to magnet or charter schools, or to take advantage of other innovative educational approaches as they come along, it doesn’t have to. Those sorts of learning opportunities could be incorporated into a given district’s educational options. We have an excellent magnet school here in the city of Pittsburgh, the school of Creative and Performing Arts, which is part of the Pittsburgh Public School System and grants admission based on audition or portfolio. There’s no reason other institutions couldn’t be structured in the same way.

As a society, we need to adequately address our children’s need for a good, solid, sound opportunity for education. But we need to do so in the right ways. And we need to do so without the selective cherry-picking and biases of those who do not want to educate, but to indoctrinate.

May 17, 2010 at 9:40 am

--Tammy Alonso

Tags: Anthony Williams

comments

comments [5] | post a comment