Above all, we must keep in mind that the intent of public education is the overall betterment of society by providing a universally well-educated citizenry. We all pay for it and we all benefit most not when results are maximized for a select few, but when those results are distributed as widely as possible. It is absolutely fine if parents, so motivated, wish to send their children to private schools. But when active selection begins to take place within public schools, we may improve the performance of the minority who take advantage of school choice, but it is almost certainly at the expense of those left behind – and at the expense of the overall academic achievement of society as a whole.
To understand how this happens, I would suggest reading Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Outliers. The first chapter describes how at every level of hockey, all the way up through the NHL, fully four times as many Canadian-born players are born in January through March than are born in October through December. The reason? Because beginning around age nine or ten, select teams begin choosing the best of each eligible age group, and since the cutoff date to determine which age group one plays in is January 1, those born in January (and February and March) are too young to make the cut – so they become the oldest of the next group. Since they are the oldest, they are also the biggest and most coordinated. When it comes time for the next year’s selection, guess who the best teams take. Yes, those who are biggest and most coordinated. Those players then get better coaching, better competition, more practice and more games. Meanwhile, those born at the end of the year, who are smaller and less coordinated, end up in rec leagues, and therefore never develop their full potential.
The numbers are amazingly consistent – 40% of elite hockey players are born January-March, 30% from April-June, 20% from July-September and 10% October through December. So, while each age cohort begins with roughly the same number of players, far fewer of those born late in the year reach their full potential, meaning that for every player born October-December who makes the NHL, there are three more who had all the potential to do so, but because they were left behind by the system, they became ordinary.
Now, imagine a public education system that does essentially the same thing. Charter schools are notorious for their selectivity, leaving many worthy children behind. By segregating those whose parents are motivated to apply for charter schools and have the means and motivation to make sure their children can get to those schools, we leave a majority of students behind in schools that have lost a sizeable portion of their best students and most involved parents. Many of these kids left behind have as much potential as those who move on, but because schools without parental involvement invariably decline in quality, education suffers as teachers leave, community financial support declines and social pathologies increase.
Just as hockey players never reach their potential, so it is with our students. And if one considers how much better the quality of pro hockey would be if every player reached their potential, just consider how much better the quality of our economy and our society would be if every student, likewise, reached their full potential. Imagine more doctors, engineers, programmers and, yes, more teachers.
Again, we are talking about public education. It does not exist to provide the best education possible to a select and lucky few, but to provide the best possible education to every child. I asked the Executive Director of Betsy Devos’s Great Lakes Education Project numerous times in the months leading up to the election if the superior performance of charter schools was measured by comparing the individual performance of each student against their previous performance at their original school, or if it simply compared the performance of charter school students against non-charter school students (that’s a significant difference that ignores the selection bias). The closest I got to a response was, “Good luck with that.” I would expect something more definitive.
The public should not be expected to shell out hard-earned tax dollars so that they can disproportionately benefit a select few at the expense of many. Worse, we should be wary about programs that may leave a majority of students with an education inferior to what a fair and equitable public school system should deliver. We will not be well-served subsidizing the few at a great long-term expense to society – an expense that will only worsen as public education becomes less and less valued by an ever greater number of underserved, yet highly deserving parents and students.
No comments:
Post a Comment