You had to ask

Over at the Pittsburgh Comet, Bram asks what I think of school vouchers and charter schools as the cure for what ails the Duquesne School District. Here was what I said, in answer to his question and in response to someone else who posted a comment at his blog:

I'm not opposed to charter schools, and I'm not opposed to school vouchers that are targeted at low-income families, or families who live in distressed communities. But let's remind our libertarian friends that those are government solutions. Money for vouchers would come from public coffers, and charter schools are public schools--they just happen to be freed from some state regulations and can choose to specialize in certain areas.

In other words, even if government wouldn't be providing education to these students, it would be paying for it. And that's as it should be, because education is a public good. We rely not only on our own education, but on the education of others to allow society to function.

Now, plenty of people think that education is one of many things that the private sector could do better than the public sector. Never mind that privatization of a school in Wilkinsburg several years ago failed, nor that, to me knowledge, the nation's for-profit K-12 education firms have yet to actually make a profit. (I could be wrong on that.)

We can talk all we want about government bureaucracy, or union rules, but at the end of the day, one of the biggest determinants of education success is socio-economic status, and the big challenge is to help schools overcome the disadvantages that poverty brings.

Certainly, many public schools have found ways to do this, and some private schools as well. In Pittsburgh, we have the Extra Mile Education Foundation, which funds four K-8 Catholic schools that primarily serve low-income, African-American students. (And mostly non-Catholic, if I'm not mistaken.) These are great schools, and many of their students continue their success through high school and attend college.

But this brings us back to what Bram is talking about. I don't think the Extra Mile schools go out recruiting students. Perhaps they get referrals. I'm guessing that most children end up there because their parents found out about the schools, or were told about the schools, and made the decision to send their children there. They took all the necessary steps to enroll them. These kids may be poor, but they have parents who care about their education and are motivated to do something about it.

So the question is, how we can help those parents do even more for their children, and what can we do for the children who maybe aren't so blessed? Government can not do everything, you are correct, am in bp, but we have to acknowledge that if we just write off these children, than our most ugly predictions and fears about them will come to pass, and the problems the result will not confine themselves to Duquesne.

Here are some other thoughts I have on privatization of public services.

Taking note

Pittsblog and The Pittsburgh Comet pick up the torch.

What's in a name?

Well, that was quick:

Pittsburgh Public Schools Superintendent Mark Roosevelt announced this afternoon that he's going to continue using "public" as part of the school district's commonly used name.

At a school board Education Committee meeting last week, Mr. Roosevelt's staff proposed using "Pittsburgh Schools" as the commonly used term for the district.

That prompted an outcry from parents and other residents who said the district should be proud of the word "public." (from the Post-Gazette)

Look, marketing and public relations are important. But there are limits to what they can accomplish for an organization. The problem here is that the district has substantive problems (which, in fairness, it is trying to address), but it appeared to be wasting time and money on a branding campaign that people correctly believed would do nothing to improve the district's image. Quite the contrary, by dropping the word "public" from its name, the school district seemed to tacitly admit there is something wrong with public schools.

Backtracking is the right thing to do in this instance. But it makes district officials look doubly foolish nonetheless.

In other education matters, Chris Briem takes up the good fight.

A Pennsylvania tragedy

Jason throws down the gauntlet, and I'll pick it up. What is happening now with the Duquesne School District--and with the children whose very futures are at stake--is downright criminal. It represents a perfect storm of problems with how Pennsylvania is governed. One is the multiplicity of local governments, many of which--in the face of declining populations and shrinking tax bases--can no longer adequately provide government services, including education. Another is the over-reliance on locally generated revenues to fund public education, which should be a right of any child, regardless of their station in life, and regardless of where they had the good or bad fortune to be born.

Yes, I'm aware that low-income districts like Duquense often get more state and federal money than many affluent districts, but they also need more. The educational deficits caused by poverty are real, they start early, and their effects are cumulative. And if wealthy districts want to spend more money on schools, they have that option--poor districts do not. That doesn't mean that poor children can't learn, or that poverty should excuse failure--but it is willfully ignorant to deny that affluent children have advantages that make their schools' job easier.

I would certainly agree that throwing more money at the problem is not the best answer. Meaningful, effective education reform is a goal that has eluded this nation for more than a generation, and I could be more forgiving if the crisis in Duquense had touched off a genuine debate over how to address the problems faced by underachieving school districts.

But as far as Duquesne is concerned, no one cares. There is no substantive discussion occurring because no one, save for their own parents, seems to give a rat's ass what happens to these kids. Certainly not the governor or state legislators, who have been too busy trying to keep open casinos and find money for hockey arenas. Not the good folks in West Mifflin, who don't want those children in their schools. Regardless of their motives, West Mifflin residents are horribly mistaken if they think the fate of Duquesne's students is not their concern. Do they really think that crime, proverty and economic stagnation respect arbitrarily drawn municipal boundaries?

Education is a right, and a social good. It is not a privilege conferred solely on the affluent, or those who live in the right zip codes. We all suffer if our neighbors' children don't get as good an education as our own. One day, the people in West Mifflin and our "leaders" in Harrisburg will understand that. But by then it will be too late.