When the choices don’t really exist

RiShawn Biddle

Expresso, Dec. 11, 2006

Does school choice actually exist in any realistic sense for Indianapolis' poor- and middle-class families who want to avoid -- or get out of -- poor-performing schools? At first glance, the array of options seem to be abundant: Not only can a parent choose from the traditional public school districts such as IPS and Washington Township, but from 56 independent private schools, 36 Catholic schools and the ten schools in Indianapolis that are part of the Lutheran Schools of Indiana.

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 Indianapolis (as much as $10,600 annually), St. Richards ($12,000 for a middle-schooler) or even Park Tudor. In the case of Catholic schools such as Holy Angels, the $3,000 annual tuition is reasonable on its face, especially in light of the $6,000 actual cost of educating each student, (most of which is picked up by fundraising). But in a city where the median family income is around $49,000 -- and with major pockets of economically poor families such as in Martindale-Brightwood and the neighborhoods surrounding Holy Angels -- the tuition for just one child is equal to a year's rent for some families. Even with financial aid, the private school education can be out of reach.

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 Indianapolis, almost none outside of Center Township. While Mayor Bart Peterson -- whose charter school operation is the primary authorizing agency in the city -- has been pushing hard to add more schools, he must accommodate his other mandate that the schools offer options that cannot be found within IPS and other districts. That leads to a restriction in the number of options available.

Solving that problem would require another charter authorizer, say Ball State, to begin launching schools in order to expand the capacity. Whether this will happen anytime soon is up for question.

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 Indianapolis branch of the national Knowledge Is Power Program in Haughville, students often end up on waiting lists because of the limited capacity. Meanwhile the high schools within the group, such as Charles A. Tindley and the new Herron High have enrollments that top out at around 245 students, a population that pales in comparison to an Arsenal Tech's 2,243 or 3,900 for Warren Central.

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 Indianapolis; traditional public schools of varying quality are often the only options available. Plenty will have to be done in order to change this state of affairs. But that's a discussion for another day.

Comments

 

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 Marion County. And guess what? The majority of residents in Indianapolis-Marion County live not within IPS, but outside of it in school districts that in some cases, don't perform that much better than IPS (and for all the knocks that IPS gets from this corner for poor performance, this must be acknowledged).

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 Key School also are each based on alternative teaching methods. There is a second Key School and a second Center For Inquiry school either online now or in process. Parents do have the option of matching learning style with teaching style—even within IPS. The Options schools are not competitive admission schools. And the demand for these schools is driving capacity.

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 America needs schools that liberate students, enabling them to question the status quo and speak truth to power. Let’s stop wasting energy squabbling over choice and make sure more of the choices educate urban minorities and the poor in the own self-interests, not in the interests of educators, employers, or the state.

 

 

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 Lawrence township system so that we make take advantage of that systems current charter high school. This plan works in conjunction with local community colleges and allow students to earn college level credit and transition easily into college.

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.