The Public School Lottery: The Glossary to Educational Choice

 by Nancy Salvato  

| View comments |  Print This Post

Spending money on public school isn’t a lot different than depositing quarters into the Crane Game at an arcade and trying to grasp one of the low quality stuffed animals available to the select few who actually win.

There is an old adage which says that a person can save $365.00 a year by simply not playing the Lottery. It’s true that for some folks gambling may pay off big, but for the average person there is no return. It’s just lost money. And for many people, money is better spent on that which they can control. Those who have money to burn can responsibly enjoy the thrill of the gamble because they are not left wanting when they leave the boat. For others, everything they own might be placed on a hope and a prayer. They may end up leaving the boat without any options; left at the mercy of the world around them.

In many ways the public school system can be compared to a lottery. A large number of families have little control over where they can live or the school their child will attend. It is through “chance and circumstance” whether the local public school will provide an adequate education. In the event of failure, “controlled choice” in public education provides limited alternatives, many of which are dependent upon winning a spot in a school lottery.

Alternatives in the public school system include the following:

1. Limited or unlimited ability to transfer to another public school located inside or outside of the home district.

2. Magnet schools

3. Charter schools

4. Contracted schools

In statewide open enrollment plans, students who transfer from one school district to another take state funds with them. The problem is that schools that fail to attract students are left with less state money and are less likely to improve. Some schools will perform better while others will do worse. Parents who transfer their children outside of their home school districts may find their influence in the new school diminished because it’s more difficult to vote for school board members and to take the time or find transportation to go to meetings and events located long distances away. Community bonding, inherent in a neighborhood school, gets lost.

Some school systems have zones rather than districts. Families rank their preferences for the schools within their zone. They are awarded one of their choices depending on the racial and ethnic balance at that school. Improving schools through free market competition cannot be realized because schools don’t compete against one another. Controls ensure that schools are provided with students and money without motivating them to improve. Only when schools are run independently and have to compete for clients will they feel compelled to meet the needs of individual parents and students.

Magnet schools provide distinctive curriculum or instruction. By attracting students from outside an assigned neighborhood attendance zone, they are intended to desegregate school systems without forced busing. Appealing magnet programs encourage parents to remain in the public school system and to agreeably mix white and minority students in formerly segregated schools.

Magnet schools serve only a small percentage of students. Because there isn’t room for all students, this choice depends on race, income level, and previous school performance. Often there is a “creaming process” where only high achievers with involved parents are chosen. Wealthier sections of the city have more access to magnet schools. Black students must travel further to attend the best magnets. Commuting is often problematic. It can be said that what makes a magnet unique is not the curricula but that there are adequate resources and a safe orderly climate of learning.

Though charter schools are publicly funded — reimbursed by the state for each student (equaling the average statewide per-pupil expenditure) — they are free of many of the rules and regulations placed on traditional schools. Most charters form in “strong-law states” because there’s no union control, there are multiple charter-granting agencies such as the local school board, state education agency, or university, and the per-pupil funding levels are realistic.

Teachers, parents, or other would-be educators can apply for permission to open a school. Some states also allow existing public or nonsectarian private schools to convert to charter status. Under these circumstances, private schools lose the luxury of choosing those who attend their schools because everyone must be accepted.

Autonomy over their budget, staffing and curriculum varies from state to state. Most problems with public funding occur when state legislation is too permissive. There isn’t a method for choosing or removing the board of directors, there’s no allowance for state influence over curricula beyond revoking charters, or there’s no state control over daily operations.

Schools must be able to attract students and fulfill their objectives in order to maintain their charters. They are usually expected to achieve certain educational outcomes within three to five years or sponsors will revoke their charter. Charters typically teach underserved youngsters and around 25% of their teachers use either “core knowledge” or “direct-instruction” methodology. Most charters have long waiting lists.

Despite the positive ripple effect charters have on their home districts — they can be likened to safety valves used to alleviate overcrowding and potential complaints, spurring the local schools to avail the public of more information; provide more teacher training; offer full-day kindergarten; increase their accountability; and improve academics — there is a lot of resistance from the “Educracy.” Start up charters often face hostility from local boards, state education agencies, and unions. Courts and legislation are used to derail or restrict charter schools with protracted battles over charter applications, transportation, building leases, students’ records, hiring practices, and funding allocation, often resulting in less money available for art and advanced placement.

Some laws require incorporating charters into a school district, which compromises their independence. External accountability requirements result in a loss of uniqueness. Because of the public funding, it’s inevitable that charters will face litigation over use of church property, religious leaders on governing boards, or religious education programs.

Contract schools are publicly funded but are operated by for-profit E.M.O.’s, or education-management companies. These companies sign a contract with a public agency that clearly defines the school mission, level of public funding, and accountability standards. An outside contractor, in theory, creates an additional layer of regulation.

The reality is that E.M.O.’s do not have to competitively bid for contracts and there is a notorious lack of oversight and monitoring of sponsored schools. This in combination with the profit motive of some organizations has in many instances resulted in a lowering of academic standards and teacher qualifications.

This occurs because some save money by hiring beginning teachers for low wages. Resources like labs and books are scarce. Fewer student services, such as transportation, school lunches, intramural athletics, band and orchestra, and extracurricular activities, are available. Some schools provide students a four hour school day, enabling E.M.O.’s to profit by teaching two shifts of students. Some teaching staff has been replaced by self paced computer instruction. Profiteering exists in the form of excess rental charges, enrollment misrepresentations, and sponsor chartering fees.

Finally, many E.M.O.’s specialize in elementary education because it’s less costly to teach this age group. Limited-English or disabled students are high maintenance, yet states usually provide the same subsidy for every student regardless of any need for special services. E.M.O.’s that do target minority and disadvantaged students weed out hard-to-teach youngsters and often use scripted, unimaginative teaching and disciplinary techniques.

For the majority of plain folk, the money they gamble on funding public education could be better spent on independently run schools which meet the specific needs of their family. The public school system offers few viable alternatives for a failing school. Spending money on public school isn’t a lot different than depositing quarters into the Crane Game at an arcade and trying to grasp one of the low quality stuffed animals available to a select few who actually win. It’s exciting to win, but what did you really get for your money?

Education

Read more articles by Nancy Salvato