When the choices don’t really
exist
RiShawn Biddle
Expresso, Dec. 11,
2006
Does school choice actually exist in any realistic sense for
But choice isn't simply determined by abundance of options. It's the ability
of customers -- parents and children in this case -- to have the ability,
financial and otherwise, to exercise those choices. It is also based on the
availability of those choices, which in the case of schools, is determined not
by market demands, but by political considerations. On those scores, the
reality is that school choice doesn't exist for most families.
Most private schools, for example, don't cost nearly as much as the
International School of
Some of this would be ameliorated if some portion of the taxes paid by those
parents to subsidize traditional public schools could follow their children in
order to fund a private school education. Such a system, especially if geared
toward poor-but-middle class-minded families, would actually do much towards
expanding their options. But this doesn't currently exist. So a family that
decides to send their child to a private school will continue to subsidize a
system that doesn't provide the best education for their child while paying out
of pocket for one that does. The fiscal logic, therefore dictates that such a
choice won't be made.
Even if the family has the income means to finance private school tuition,
there are the capacity constraints. The average Catholic elementary school has
just around 300 students; while around the same size as an IPS elementary school, they often have 300 fewer students than the average
traditional public elementary school in the townships. If a large number of
parents wanted to leave their traditional public school for a private school,
they would have to fight for space on waiting lists in order to get in.
The city's charter schools would then be the most fiscally sensible option
for low-income parents who want to get out of low-performing schools. After
all, they are public schools and therefore the tax dollars paid by the parents
would follow their child from one school system to another. But that isn't
always a realistic option.
For one, there are just 17 of them in
Solving that problem would require another charter authorizer, say
Then there is the reality that most charter schools are small schools, each
of them with an average enrollment of just 254 students -- a smaller population
than that for the average traditional public school. As seen with the
This capacity issue won't be solved immediately either, largely because the
concept of providing a smaller, more intimate setting is generally at the heart
of the mission of those who start charter schools. More importantly, because
the capital costs for doing so aren't borne by taxpayers as in the case of any
traditional public school expansion, but by those who attend or raise funds for
those schools; this is an expense many charters can't bear.
For those who insist that school choice is currently a reality, the facts
don't bear this out. And in many ways, it's worse for those middle-class and
poor parents outside of
Comment from John Stence on December 11, 2006 3:28 PM
You have conveniently ignored the IPS Option / Magnet schools.
Taking a look at some of these schools, we see:
-Frances W Parker School 56 K-8 as having 88% free and reduced lunch, 10%
white and 81.8% combined ISTEP passing rates (quite good)
-Rousseau Mc Clellan School 91 K-8 as having 62%
free and reduced lunch, 31% white and 81.4% combined ISTEP passing rates (also
quite good)
-Center For Inquiry School K-8 as having 65% free
and reduced lunch, 34% white and 78.7% combined ISTEP passing rates. (Above the
state average of 72.9 – includes middle school grade levels)
-Key School K-12 67% free and reduced lunch, 29% white and 55.7% 78.7%
combined ISTEP passing rates. (not good, but it
includes the middle and high schools where kids)
There is also IPS school 58 in my neighborhood—a traditional IPS school
where 87% of the kids receive free or reduced price lunch, 42% are white and
has a 79.5% combined ISTEP passing rates. Although this is a traditional IPS
school – it is still a choice and a good one at that.
And those are just the option schools – it does not include the numerous
magnet programs within IPS schools. It would seem to me that both poor and
minority families are taking advantage of school choice within IPS and doing
quite well-- thank you. What’s more, IPS is expanding the number of these
schools and transportation is provided.
You have also conveniently explained away the many low-income people who
take advantage of catholic schools. Looking at Little Flower we see about 25%
free and reduced lunch, 16% for Scecina and 62% for
Holy Cross – just to name a few on the east side.
In addition, neighborhoods have come together to effect school choices –
Whether that is a charter school or a traditional IPS school. There is school
choice and there is more coming online almost every
year – in the form of charter schools, IPS option/magnet schools and the
eastside even had a new Catholic prep school open. The new capacity coming
online was one of the things that convinced our neighborhood that we didn’t need
to pursue a new charter school.
Let’s face it, the problem is that parents having
school choice now doesn’t fit neatly in with your political agenda. You would
rather talk about Dropout Factories than acknowledge that families might be
failing their kids – and the schools.
The real issue is if more families, particularly low income families, are
going to become involved with their child’s education enough to make decisions
about schools. It is that parental involvement that ultimately is the
overwhelming factor in a child’s educational success. And it is not just
primary and secondary school. If a child is going to advance to and succeed in
college, he/she will need that family support.
Comment from RiShawn Biddle on December 11,
2006 3:55 PM
Actually John, I didn't ignore them at all; they're traditional public
schools run by traditional public school systems. Calling them magnets or
centers of anything doesn't change that and John, you're far smarter than that.
If you're going to accuse me of conveniently ignoring anything, then you better
bring it and bring it good. And you haven't. Better luck next time.
One isn't saying that IPS isn't offering some more options; they are and on
that score, it is laudable. But this isn't true of all of the 11 traditional
public school districts in
More importantly, you are forgetting that getting into those schools isn't
as simple as walking in and registering your student. Getting into the Crispus
Attucks magnet, for example, requires getting the recommendation of a teacher.
Since getting that recommendation isn't always easy, this means that parents
can't simply make a choice of applying for a space -- as they would do if they
wanted their child to attend a Park Tudor or a KIPP Indy -- and gaining a spot
if one was available. which means that there is a
gatekeeper that can decide whether a student shall get in or not.
A key part of choice, at least in a market sense, is the ease with which
they can be made. And this is dependent on context. A college that requires
recommendations in order to get anything close to be accepted is tolerable
because not everyone chooses to go into higher education and the university has
an obligation to protect its rigor.
The standard is different with elementary and secondary education; each
student is entitled to the best education possible, a principle that is
incorporated into the No Child Left Behind Act. This
means that there must be high-quality choices available in significant numbers.
In other words, capacity, an argument which I will get back
to later on. The other part of ease of choice is being able to, say, register your child for a high quality education
without having to jump through so many hoops. On this score, even with the
existence of magnets, choice is still limited.
The existence of magnets, to some extent, also highlights another problem in
traditional public education: The districts aren't providing each and all
students the same rigor of education and high expectations that benefits all
students. By creating these magnets that aren't based on individual learning
styles, but on college-tracking, this means some kids will get the benefit of a
rich, rigorous expectation while other students do not, extending the sort of
tracking that has long been found throughout school systems, including the
comprehensive high school. What does this actually do for the vast majority of
students who will never get into these magnets?
The problem John is that you don't look at choice as both a
market-orientation and that of ultimately providing the best opportunities for
students to gain the best education possible. Your view of school choice is a
more traditional orientation, which given the research in learning style along
with the evidence (coming from both those supporting and generally opposed to
school choice), doesn't work for anyone in this day and age.
This orientation means ignoring the issue of capacity -- how many schools
and how many seats are truly available for students -- and the true economic
costs -- especially in light of the reality that parents have to both finance the education of their children along with paying for
retirement, for example -- which means not seeing the whole picture.
When these matters are considered, the question of whether school choice
actually exists on a realistic level is different than the one you paint in
your comments.
Just noting that some Catholic schools have high free lunch populations
doesn't mean that every poor student can get in. After all, those students must
be subsidized by students from wealthier and upper middle-class homes, along
with fundraising and the free labor that has long been supplied to Catholic
schools by the priesthood. The latter is changing, largely because of the
difficulties the church is having in luring people to the priesthood. And it
can't simply hire teachers at a far lower salary scale than that offered by
traditional public schools -- the dominant players in the education market with
nearly 90 percent of the total enrollment both in Marion County and nationwide.
As I've mentioned ad nauseum -- and despite your
willful ignorance -- these realities, along with the fact that most Catholic
and private schools are small in enrollment size means that for the average
poor or middle-class parent, getting into one of those schools is difficult.
And that's before discussing the matter of finances.
The problem John is that your view doesn't square with the reality of school
choice for most parents. Contrary to your contention that I'm somehow trying to
willfully ignore reality because of my ideology, it seems that you are doing
exactly the charge of which I've been accused.
This is evident in the fact that you constantly insist that I'm not
demanding that parents play a more significant role in their education when
I've written ad nauseum about this, along with the
need for those in the Black community to combat cultural problems within (see
last year's "Good for the gander" which, by the way, has a comment or
two from you). Given that you are a regular reader of this forum, your
unwillingness to acknowledge the record is being rather intellectually lazy at
best.
Once again, thanks again for your participation.
Comment from Jim S. on December
11, 2006 5:34 PM
RiShawn, you may have written about the importance of families in the
development of their children a few times, but if I were to compare this number
to the posts criticizing public schools, it would be a lopsided number.
You mercilessly and arrogantly blast away at the public schools when they
have a most difficult and important job to do, and are in the process of doing
it.
Blasting away at the public schools framed by the misleading criteria of
test scores is an easy thing to do and most of the mainstream corporate
controlled media do it and you are no exception.
You conveniently understate the importance of child rearing and parental
influence on children's success rates in this ongoing debate.
Do you know what kind of parenting I am talking about RiShawn? Do you have
children of your own?
http://dukenews.duke.edu/2004/08/success_0804.html
http://www.nochildleft.com/
Comment from John Stence on December 12, 2006 9:53 AM
Just to be clear, the first two IPS schools I mentioned are Montessori
schools and The Center for Inquiry and the
The magnet programs may be competitive – either to sign-up or to remain in
them. This is as it should be. There is no point in signing a child up for a
science magnet program if they have no aptitude for it. But aptitude and talent
is not limited to wealthy people (at least I hope that is not what you are
suggesting).
What I see is that IPS is willing to compete for the good students and the
involved parents – It has made that clear by expanding the Option/Magnet
program. And I think that it is a very good thing. There is no reason that IPS
should continue to allow other schools to skim the bright kids and the involved
families only to be left with the poverty minded.
But therein lies the problem with school choice
RiShawn style: Because competition works both ways – even public schools,
including IPS, will compete for bright kids and involved families. This is
already the new reality. Parents who step-up and become involved with their
child’s education have the best educational opportunities and those who don’t
will probably be worse off than before. My contention all along is that this is
the new reality now (although some level of school choice has always been
there). We need to be emphasizing to parents their responsibility – They can’t
just put little Johnny out at the bus stop and hope for the best.
Comment from Tammy on December 12,
2006 10:16 AM
My favorite recent argument over "failing schools" has been the
giant hole you could drive a dumptruck through in the
NCLB con.
Most public schools have 36 categories of students, broken down by race, socieconomic status, etc.
If only one category fails, the whole school is considered failing. And
therefore, children have the choice to go into the "other":
parochial, charter, etc. which aren't too far ahead of the public school.
I agree IPS is rough: I graduated from Tech in 99. But being in the magnet
made all the difference. People I rubbed shoulders with all day were just as poor or poorer than me. The difference between us and everyone
else is that we had parents and teachers that wanted us to succeed and didn't
keep it a secret.
The only thing that is going to make these kids smarter, better, faster,
whatever is to change the culture in which they live.
If you don't like the low test scores, cull the idiots. (Keep abortion legal)
Attract smarter parents to the state (especially gay people who have to work
really hard to have kids). And develop programs that allow the not booksmart to succeed at something they're good at (see Howe's
skateboarding program).
Remember, test scores aren't EVERYTHING.
Comment from RiShawn Biddle on December 12,
2006 10:46 AM
The problem isn't the matter of competition within magnet schools and you know
that John, so stop being obstinant and twisting
words. Or at least learn to read carefully. The problem is that a parent has to
go through a gatekeeper system that has little to do with the child's aptitude,
but with whether a teacher or guidance counselor feels that child is capable.
This sort of "creaming," to put it mildly, means that a child doesn't
have a real shot at getting picked for a program based on the potential to do
well and then allowed to work hard to keep that spot (as they should).
You also act as if the information for such programs is as easily accessible
to poor parents as it is to wealthier and middle-class parents. Let's get real;
as school officials such as Cheltenham's Chris McGinley (a veteran of
Philadelphia's school district) will admit themselves, they do a poor job of
getting information to the parents, especially those who have joined just
joined the middle class from poor, blue collar backgrounds. Those parents tend
to have not grown up in environments where discussions about applying for the
SAT had taken place, because many of them never went to college. Expecting
parents to make such educational decisions with little information, especially
given what we have learned over the last two decades about learning styles and
cognitive issues, is akin to a sick person making a self-diagnosis; they're
going to get it wrong.
Besides expanding choices, this means creating groups that can help parents
through the process of choosing schools. While the Greater Educational
Opportunities Foundation does some of this, there aren't enough players in this
arena -- and enough objective players (GEO for example, also runs charter
schools) -- to help parents through this process.
Remember that for almost two centuries, the concept of school choice didn't
even really exist on any substantial level; parents pretty much believed (and
led to believe) that any school will do. This isn't true. But it takes more
time to change the human mind's perceptions of reality than it does for the
environment, both social and otherwise, to change.
Again John, I'm not saying parents don't have a responsibility for their own
children in this regard; they do. But you can't argue for personal
responsibility and then not foster the environment that would allow parents to
become responsible. Part of doing this involves creating a marketplace of
education, both in ideas and in action, where parents can learn about the
options and easily access them within reason. This is what the marketplace of
goods and services do every day and quite successfully. That's why when a
parent feeds a child nothing but McDonald's and the kid becomes obese, they are
deservedly taken to task for such as screwup; there
are plenty of resources that both the wealthy, poor and middle-class can access
to learn about improving eating habits and diets.
This isn't so with education. Why? Because it isn't a true
market as known to an economist, where consumers set the terms of engagement
for those selling a product or service. Education remains a government-funded
cartel system where politics often plays a bigger role in the array of choices
and information available to parents. Ignoring this reality John is simply
being intellectually obstinant to the point of
personal embarrassment.
Again, I'm not the only person noting this. Can you really argue with Andrew
Rotherham (a pro-charter schools,
anti school-voucher guy on the left) or Frederick Hess (pro-vouchers and
charters on the right)? I don't think so. They , along
with Chester Finn, are the foremost experts in the area of school reform and
have been detailing the capacity problems in school choice for the past decade.
You can't argue against those who know.
At this point, we are once again arguing past each other. We have the same
ultimate goals in mind and agree on the same basic points -- the culture of low
educational expectations must be tossed asunder, for example -- but you see the
world far differently than I on the matter of choice. You think what is out
there is good enough; I would argue that if you think it's
good enough, then you aren't thinking this through.
Unfortunately John, the problem with this discussion is that it has gone far
and beyond a civil discourse. At this point, you believe that I'm some sort of
hack. While as a reader, you should know much better than that, you are
entitled to your opinion; my job isn't to be loved by readers and frankly, I
have a mother and family for that anyway. However, I would never say that about
you because it isn't fair and more importantly, as an editorialist, I
understand that intelligent people can see the world differently. As shown by
the differing interpretations of British soldiers and Tibetan monks about
hand-clapping, there is no inherent existence or inherent anything. This means
that there will be bitter disagreement on many issues. This also means that one
should learn to strongly disagree without resorting to nastiness.
If I've been too strong in my defense of ideas, I apologize for not being as
congenianl as I could be. At the same time, as I've
said before, strong, consistent, thoughtful criticism of ideas in the push for
change is no vice.
And that is all.
Comment from IPSo
facto on December 12, 2006 9:46 PM
RiShawn,
Thanks for your endeavors to create a discussion about local public
education. This is a first of its kind in local education history. Until now,
few got involved in this way and at this level in critiquing our public
schools, putting the institutions and those who work there under the public
microscope. That's how the state and school districts got away with spinning
the graduation rates to make educators look like they were doing a great job
and hiding their failures. This is needed and it looks like it will continue.
Congratulations.
I am an educator and work for IPS. I'm in high school classrooms daily.
Although these discussions are necessary, they miss one point: Regardless of
the type of urban public school choice--regular, magnet, charter--if they do
not educate students in their own self-interests, it doesn't matter. If the
education is colonizing or domesticating, and not liberatory
or transforming, then where/how/what kind of school does not matter.
Urban students, even in magnets and charters, are currently given
domesticating education: a climate of obedience and/or conformity that
discourages students as critical thinkers. All the local charters with their
uniforms, traditional curriculum and orientation towards discipline and proper
school behavior: sit still, be quiet, and listen (maybe except the MET consider)
consider assimilation into the mainstream as the goal of education.
Very few educators want these students to have political motives for
acquiring literacy, numeracy, and a diploma. There is
no liberating curriculum that encourages and enables urban minorities and the
working class to express their own ideas and concerns, and helps them to view
their education as a means to further their own agenda by challenging the
status quo and creating a truly democratic society. These educators do not want
to create critical thinkers, teach students how to maneuver in a democracy and
organize to practice it at school and community, take control of their lives
and actually change the factors of poverty that affect school success by
developing an authentic curriculum grounded in the everyday lives of the
students thus helping them realize they can do something about their
circumstances—going thru the various political processes of actually affecting
policy at the local, state, and federal level.
Our
Comment from IPSgrad
on December 13, 2006 9:39 AM
RiShawn is correct. I myself graduated from IPS in 1987. I currently have my
fifth grader enrolled in a charter school. I have to drive her back and forth
to school everday and pay for before and after care.
She was also lucky enough to be chose via a lottery
system for a spot in this school.
When we moved her from her small parochial school into the public arena, we
attended all the meetings and completed all the forms mailed them on time etc
and she was still not chosen for our choice for her for magnet program.
Our current plan for her education is to have her complete elementary and
middle school at her current charter. We are in the process of selling our
house and moving into the
I am definitely for true school choice through a voucher system. My childs academic are stellar but I
can simply not afford to foot the entire bill for Park Tudor or Heritage
Christian education. Unfortunenately, I am too rich
to be poor and too poor to be rich.
Comment from No Fan Of Indy on December 14, 2006 12:14 PM
IPS grad:
You are the one that is correct, you are making the
changes needed to improve your child's educational opportunity. We sit and
argue about vouchers and choice, but what it really boils down to is parental
responsibility.
Real story here,( in the school to remain
unidentified to protect the innocent)During the first semester this year, I had
126 students per day in my 5 biology classes . As of midterm, I had 86 failing grades. Now each and every student receives a
midterm progress report mailed home. Of those 86 failing students I received 18
parental replies. That means only 25% of the parents
involved showed edven the minimal amount of interest
in the education of their child. Now upon further research I found that 75% of
my failing students failed at least one other class and 25% failed all of their
classes. Yet even the sadest statistic is yet to
come.
One week after progress reports wre mailed I
receive a letter from a local grocery store. In this letter was one of my
progress reports with the families grocery list
written on the back.
Point to all of this if parental involment is not
present choice does not matter. Besides, I teach at the science magnet school
for my corporation, so it would seem that if your child is failing biology at
the science magnet school you would want to contact the teacher???? Yet 80% of
the parents did not. So would allowing this group of parents to choose another
school corporation help? I seriously doubt that it would. So bring on choice,
vouchers whatever I look forward to seeing the results.