Chrysta

Chapter 1 Critical Issues and Critical Thinking Chapter 1 expounds on the question, “Whose Interests Should Schools Serve?” There is no simple answer to this question. Ultimately, I believe the correct answer is that schools should serve the interests of the students. However, it is widely accepted that the opinions of students hold the least value in the educational setting. In today’s educational settings, there are many competing interests for determining what children should be taught. Historically, schools were established for the sole purpose of educating the children of wealthy, Caucasian families in the classics. Public schools were later expanded to educate poorer children, then ethnic minority children, and finally, children with disabilities. Although public education was eventually extended to all children, they are not all receiving the same quality of education. Public schools are often placed under the microscope of critics. We should look objectively at issues such as curriculum design and assessment; school funding; religion and school organization. Chapter 2 School Choice There are many debates about school choice. Proponents of school choice argue that voucher programs give parents more choices for their children's education. Successful voucher programs would allow all students, regardless of socioeconomic status, area of residence, or parental status to be schooled in the school of their parents' choice. It is also argued that school choice voucher programs give taxpayers more say over how their tax dollars are spent on their children's educations. School voucher programs do not distinguish which types of schooling can be chosen, whether public or private. It is also believed by some, that vouchers create a more competitive playing field for schools, and if exposed to more competition for students, public schools will be forced to provide more comprehensive educational programs and better accountability for student success. Contrarily, many opponents, including Jonathon Kozol, believe strongly against the implementation of voucher programs. They argue that vouchers reduce the quality of education and destroy teacher unions. They also state that allowing parents to use tax dollars to send children to religious schools is unconstitutional. I believe that vouchers may be a good idea for leveling the playing field and providing increased opportunities for ethnic minorities and those in lower socioeconomic classes. Without a good education, poor children, and those residing in neighborhoods with unsuccessful schools, have little chance of ever improving their life’s circumstances. Given the opportunity to learn in a school, which places high emphasis on student achievement and teacher accountability, could make the difference between breaking the cycle of poverty and perpetuating it onto future generations.

Chapter 3 Financing Schools: Equity or Disparity Most public schools are funded primarily through property taxes. This method of funding can never provide equitable funding of schools as large, urban school districts will never garner the same amount of tax dollars as a wealthy suburban district. Any area with high levels of poverty and low property values will not be able to provide the necessary resources for a good education from tax dollars alone. There are also, in large urban districts like Philadelphia, gross inequities even within a district. The reasons for this vary, but undoubtedly, the schools with fewer resources are most likely located in the poorest neighborhoods. Also fueling the inequity issue is the number of students enrolled in special education programs in large, urban districts. Because it is considerably more costly to educate students with disabilities, simply dividing the pie equally does not solve the problem of educational disparity. Opponents of centralized school funding argue that more dollars does not equal greater student achievement. Opponents also argue that providing more funding to large, failing urban districts merely increases the salaries of teachers and administrators, but in no way addresses the achievement gap. Instead of public school coming primarily from local property taxes, a more centralized method of funding, and taking into consideration the children who require additional services, should be implemented. Children are not responsible for their parents’ actions and should not be penalized with a shoddy education based upon circumstances over which they have absolutely no control.

Chapter 4 Gender Equity: Eliminating Discrimination or Accommodating Difference With all of the civil rights actions to end gender discrimination in public schools, why are we now seeing a reverse in those efforts to allow single sex education? Proponents of single sex education claim that students achieve far greater than students in desegregated settings do. In the early 1990s, research data showed that girls are being shortchanged in public schools. It has been observed that teachers more readily call on boys to answer questions. Boys who call out are praised, as girls who display the same behavior are reprimanded. Boys are also encouraged to solve problems without help, while girls are more readily offered assistance. A 1998 publication by the American Association of University Women [AAUW] emphasizes that boys and girls thrive in a good educational setting, whether coeducational or not. AAUW emphasizes that other factors such as, small classes, focused curriculum, and equitable teaching practices, have more bearing on a student’s achievement than the gender makeup of the class. I do not believe that the gender makeup of a school or class should have much effect on student achievement. Single sex education is also a practice that is not representative of the real world. After graduation, students will be required to perform in coeducational settings everywhere. Learning social graces towards members of the opposite sex while in school can prepare the students for life outside of school.

Chapter 5 Standards Based Reform: Real Change or Political Smoke Screen Standards-based reform suggests that school districts create a set of standards outlining what students should know and what they should be able to do. Accordingly, assessments are created to test students’ knowledge of the prescribed standards. Standards-based educational reform was implemented as a method of potentially closing the achievement gap between White, middle class students and underperforming minority and poor students. Thus far, the results have not been impressive. The greatest reach of standards-based reform has come in the form of the No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB] of 2001. NCLB prescribes that states are to create a statewide accountability system for the curriculum and assessment in public schools. Opponents of NCLB state that the one size-fit all nature of the law, defeats the original purpose. Because all students are assessed on their knowledge of the same material, many students with difficulties, including Special Education and ESL students, have great difficulty doing well on the assessments. NCLB has also reinvigorated a pattern of segregation and discrimination. Many magnet and special admission schools are using strict admissions criteria, including statewide test scores, which immediately disqualify many minorities, disabled, and poor students from admission.

Chapter 6 Religion and Public Schools: Unification or Separation The subject of religion in public schools has always generated great debate. It is ironic that practically every form of religious expression has been removed from public schools because the earliest schools in the U.S. were established for religious reasons. Most schools began as a medium for teaching children to read the Holy Bible. In addition, in years past, families frequently sent children to religious schools of their choice. For a number of reasons, these students are now attending public schools. Increasing diversity, including religious diversity in public schools, has made religion in public schools an issue worthy of debate. There have been many lawsuits regarding religious practices and their accommodation in public schools. Schools can no longer discriminate against students for practicing religious activities if the same accommodations are made for non-religious activities. The debate over whether creationism or intelligent design should be taught in public schools is one that will never satisfy everyone. I would suggest that both methods be taught and it should be parental input that helps each student decide which theory to believe.