Losing Our Schoolhouses

It seems like only yesterday that I was blogging about the daunting possibilities of a Trump presidency.  Ten months have passed and now those speculations are becoming a reality.  Trump has done a lot of flip flopping since the election but we in the education field will get no such relief.  We are just gonna have to accept that what he has said about education is going to take place in some shape or form with his selection of Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos.

I think it is no secret that this nominee has no business in this position.  Several groups, teacher's unions included,  have come out against her selection.  Looking back at the last few days, I remembered being nauseous when I heard Michelle Rhee's name being passed around and now we have a mega donor with no education experience under her belt.  A typical play for a Republican president.

Not to be a Debbie Downer but here is the situation, Republicans have control of Congress and the Whitehouse with our new federal education law in flux and under design.  This is a recipe for a complete right turn in the area of education.  This considering that we didn't even get a sniff this campaign season as an issue.  Trump has called for $20 billion to go towards school choice programs, including private school choice.  I am a little concerned that we are on the road towards losing our schoolhouses.

Lets look at the troubles with the issue of school choice.  Many experts and educators shun the concepts and for good reason.  First, lets pretend that there is a fair metric for measuring schools.  Illinois is getting closer thanks to Vision 20/20 but lets focus on any generic district in any state.  Second, lets pretend that all schools are funded fairly and equitably.  What I am asking you to assume is that there is a level playing field for all schools to start from if we are going to a school choice scenario.  If we were all starting from the same line, we all have the opportunity win a race that seems unwinnable these days. Some schools are running 200 meters to compete in the 100.  We have yet to fix that but lets get back to school choice.

My kids attend public schools in a rural area in Southern Illinois.  If the government deemed our neighborhood school as failing, they would allow their federal dollars to go with my kids to a new new school.  The closest one being six miles away and that is only if they are not failing as well.  But lets pretend that we took that bet and moved our kids to the other school six miles away that was deemed as not failing but has the same characteristics as our old school, just a different mascot.  More and more students also move to the next town over.  Our old neighborhood school is depleted of its students and its staff.  No one wants to stay in a school building that is failing and losing kids so all that is left are sub par teachers and employees.  Who would we hire to lead these ghost town schools?  They would eventually just close leaving our little town with nothing.  Urban areas do no fair any better.  Failing schools typically reside in high poverty areas and families are not able or unwilling to send their students several neighborhoods over to attend a high performing school.

Why all the drooling over school choice?  They say that competition will either make failing schools better or close them down so kids can attend better schools.  This is not what happens.  Competition creates winners and losers.  We should know because as a country we are pretty darn good at it.  I understand in a business setting that you need to compete in your market to make money.  Winners and losers do emerge.  I get it.  What happens when we establish a school choice system that includes charters and additional private schools?  That's easy, a new market to make money in.  The winners become the for-profit schools that will explode onto the scene and the losers become low income and poverty stricken neighborhoods.  Again, typical Republican play at the national level.

Schools were never meant to be a market.  Our schoolhouses serve the people in our neighborhoods and help our kids to become productive community members.  This noble effort has never invited such competition because it does not belong there.  There has to be an effort to use our schools to help communities to encourage social mobility.  A country of for-profit schools will never be able to do what our schoolhouses can do given an even playing field.  Maybe Trump should start there when deciding a direction for our nation's education efforts instead of taking away our schoolhouses.

More links on school choice in rural areas:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/03/school-choice-feasible-rural-states/
http://www.youngedprofessionals.org/yep-dc-recess-blog/rural-charter-schools-are-a-bad-idea