The Demise of Public Education (Cathryn Crawford)

Washington Dispatch ^ | September 26, 2003 | Cathryn Crawford

[Scenic Sounds]

There are two issues commonly focused on by the American people at this time in our history – the war on terror and the economy. While both have to do with our everyday and contemporary survival, there is another issue that is of deep and long-lasting importance that seldom gets the attention that it deserves – the demise of the public school system in America. Public education is fading away, and while it is doing so, it is taking a whole generation of children with it. The problem lies within the very foundation of public education – the notion that education itself entails parenting and raising children instead of educating them. Instead of simply being accents of parents and families, public schools have become the families themselves, and the results have been devastating.

We are losing our unchallenged standing and superiority in commerce, industry, science, and technology to a rising tide of mediocrity. Teachers are no longer concerned with whether or not their students have a firm grasp of the core curriculum – they are more concerned about whether or not they offend someone with their curriculum. Instructors must embrace every child’s opinion – no matter how wrong it may be - in order to teach them in a politically correct manner. Teachers are taught in college to teach from every point of view, so instead of a nationalistic viewpoint, the content is more general, and students suffer from the lack of depth and detail.

Public schools are facing declining test scores, poor performance, high functional illiteracy rates, watered-down curriculum, and declining standards, and yet no one sees any correlation between these statistics and the expanded role of public schools as socialization centers. Public education has become all things to all people, and academics are suffering. It has become so focused on providing nutritional, medical, psychological, religious, and social care that it has lost sight of its original purpose – to educate. Public schools are no longer places of learning – they are set up instead to be social service centers that, according to Sharon Robinson of the American Educational Research Association, “accelerate progression toward the day when reform is guided by the joint efforts of researchers, practitioners, parents, social workers, health professionals, law enforcement officials, members of the business community, and other civic-minded citizens.”

Beyond the very important argument that the government makes a horrible parent, there is the added issue of “busyness” that has overtaken schools. By focusing on too many programs, their standards are lowered and their focus on the details of academics – science, history, and language – is lost. Instead of making sure that students have a firm foundation of knowledge, public schools are focusing on solving the social problems of the community around them. Instead of education, it has become socialization.

Is there a solution? Not under the existing structure. In a socialistic system – our current public educational structure - there is no competition; therefore there is no incentive for improvement or innovation. Public schools have a monopoly on the education market. Private and charter schools are only allowed to compete on a limited level because of high costs.

The only viable solutions that can be seen are either complete privatization of the public school system, or, barring that, school vouchers. Competition improves quality, and until we see public schools having to fight for their funding, we will see no improvement whatsoever in the educational system. When schools are privatized – when the government is no longer a factor in education – then we will see a difference; with vouchers, parents no longer are chained to a horrible district – they can take their money and children elsewhere.

Cathryn Crawford is a student at the University of Texas. She can be reached with comments at feedback@washingtondispatch.com.

[Cathryn Crawford]

I'm a product of 9 years of homeschooling, 2 of private schooling (high school), and no public school.

My parents are homeschooling both my little brothers, as well.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Probably not very long. They do make things interesting, though.

[Cathryn Crawford]

the problem is irresponsible and/or powerless parents.

I agree. What's your solution to this problem?

[aristeides]

What percentage of kids do you think have parents that can perform that function these days?

Better than government school teachers? Oh, maybe 95%.

[EdReform]

BTTT

read later...

[Scenic Sounds]

The truth alert meter reads 100% with this statement.

I agree. I've also noticed an increase in public hostility to public education. I'm not clear as to all the reasons, but it's out there.

[Scenic Sounds]

Better than government school teachers? Oh, maybe 95%.

Why do you suppose they don't?

[kegler4]

"Better than government school teachers? Oh, maybe 95%."

That's laughable. I wouldn't trust 95 percent of the parents
I personally know to teach my child.

[aristeides]

And you trust government school teachers?

[kegler4]

"Teachers are no longer concerned with whether or not their students have a firm grasp of the core curriculum – they are more concerned about whether or not they offend someone with their curriculum. Instructors must embrace every child’s opinion – no matter how wrong it may be - in order to teach them in a politically correct manner."

I too can't stand these broadbrush articles. While it is true that the textbooks are PC (probably true for many homeschooling books as well) and it's also true there are public schools I wouldn't send my children to, the teachers at the publics wchool my kids attend are VERY concerned about a firm grasp of the core curricuclum. And I can tell you that they don't embrace every child's opinion, either.

This article is a pile of crap, at least as it applies (or doesn't apply) to our local school district.

[kegler4]

"And you trust government school teachers?"

Every one of them? Of course not. But guess what? I make it my business to get to know my children's teachers and to monitor what they're learning. Yes, we've had some pretty mediocre ones but also some excellent ones. My children also get an education about life at home and at church. I don't leave that up to the schools.

Do you trust all of the parents you've ever met? I sure don't.

[Cathryn Crawford]

I wrote that article based somewhat on an education class that I am taking at my university. Remember, this is a class of mostly future teachers, and I was overwhelmed by the liberal agenda that the professor was pushing. Now, this is a woman that by her own admission spent 30 years teaching in secondary education, and she was very intent on making us understand that we must not only teach, but also be a “social services center” (direct quote) for the children. I wasn’t as surprised at her ideas – this is a liberal school – as the fact that everyone in the class except me agreed with her. And these are the future teachers. And this is Texas, not California or Massachusetts. The class went on to spend an hour discussing all the “appropriate” social programs that public schools should provide.

These aren't administrators we are discussing in this class - these are teachers.

[only1percent]

Empower responsible parents to escape schools dominated by the children of irresponsible parents.

In other words, geographically selective but FULLY FUNDED vouchers. (I see very little value in these $2,000 per year grants; a voucher should be for the full pro-rata portion of the school budget, which will be sufficient to fund a supply of new parochial and independent school seats.)

In addition to helping poor but responsible parents, these policies will also encourage middle-class parents to move into or stay in urban areas, rather than feeling forced to move to the suburbs. This will have a variety of social, economic, and environmental benefits.

[pgyanke]

This article is a pile of crap, at least as it applies (or doesn't apply) to our local school district.

Read the article again... she isn't crapping on your school district or any other locally controlled district. She's taking on the public education system that is failing America as a whole.

[Scenic Sounds]

In other words, geographically selective but FULLY FUNDED vouchers. (I see very little value in these $2,000 per year grants; a voucher should be for the full pro-rata portion of the school budget, which will be sufficient to fund a supply of new parochial and independent school seats.)

How would you feel about a system that allowed schools to accept vouchers only as full payment?

[MileHi]

I am way in favor of vouchers. Besides the benifits you cited, I think by moving more students to private schools the NEA deathgrip would be loosened.

[patton]

That inclusion class must be a real shocker.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Thankfully, it's the only one I'm taking. I'd drop it, but I have to have the hours for my scholarship.

[Tribune7]

ping

[kesg]

The only viable solutions that can be seen are either complete privatization of the public school system, or, barring that, school vouchers.

In the long run, only the complete, absolute abolition of socialized education -- with extreme prejudice -- will solve the problems identified in the article. Socialism cannot work in theory in education any better than it can work in theory anywhere else -- which is why it is such a miserable failure in practice in everything it touches.