April 15, 2009: Reflection Post 2

This week one of my readings discussed inequalities of schools. The article, Other People’s Children: North Lawndale and the South Side of Chicago by Kozol sparked my interest. In my review, I will not look at all the ideas presented, but rather at a few main questions. These include: what is the history of public schools, how public school is funded, what is the drawback to this type of funding, are there benefits, does funding need to be fixed/altered, what should public schools look like in five years.

First, it is important to look historically at the establishment of schools in the United States. Schools weren’t designed to be the romanticized building where learning and growth occurs. The history is rather bleak. United States schools seemed almost an afterthought early on. Children were needed on the farms and at home to help their families. Schools were forced to design schedules in a way to facilitate this. Similarly, the teaching role was somewhat passive. Teachers were not meant to design curriculums but rather be a ‘talking head’ for the professionals running the programs. The classroom was set up with the expectation children would sit, read, write, and regurgitate what is being passed to them.

However, schooling progressed. During the early 19th century high levels of immigrants were moving to the United States. Officials found schools could be used as assimilation structures for the children. The children were a captive audience forced to recite national pride propaganda (e.g. the pledge of allegiance). The progression of schools continued throughout history. To borrow an example from my Professor, the pendulum of schooling would swing back and forth between preparing children for jobs or developing their minds and bodies. I want to identify United States schools were established by white Anglo-Saxon males, and as such this was the group best served.

Second, how are public schools funded? Schools have largely remained the responsibility of states and local communities. The federal government hadn’t taken much involvement until the mid 1900s with the establishment of the Department of Education. Today, most school funding comes from local property taxes and local levies. However, a small portion may come from the federal government for schools in need.

This leads me to my third question, what are the drawbacks to this type of funding. As pointed out in the article, schools in low-income communities are more likely to have less financial resources. Lower property values equal lower tax revenue which equals lower funding. However, I found it interesting as the article points out parents in low-income areas are more likely to raise taxes on themselves to fund schooling than parents in higher-income areas. I suppose one argument for not raising taxes is that it is a perpetual cycle. Every year schools seem to need more money, at which point should taxes stop being raised? Taking a teacher perspective for a moment, should funding go to paying teachers’ salaries or equipment and resources for the classroom?

When thinking about funding, I find it important to acknowledge the shifting role of teachers. Teachers are no longer passive instruments dispensing knowledge. Communities demand teachers to create lesson plans and be actively engaged in the lives of their children. There are few other professions that demand you to be with your client constantly throughout the day. Teaching preparation is expected to be done beforehand and it is expected to be used in a way to connect the developmental needs of the children.

My fourth question is how should funding be fixed? This is difficult and to which I hold no answer, I can merely offer thoughts. Foremost it seems logical that funding needs to be equal. But I ask myself what about the schools in say inner-city which have to overcome more developmental obstacles than rich suburban schools. Perhaps the answer isn’t equal funding, but adequate funding to address the needs of the children. Some schools may get more funds, some less, but all should produce same quality of education. One component of equal quality is having equally well-trained and effective teachers at all the schools. No single school should be attracting the top teaching talent. A second component of equal quality schooling is graduation rates and test scores should be equal among schools. This will be tough to accomplish. Perhaps it means low-scoring schools will receive more funding than high-scoring. But this needs to be done in a way to encourage attaining high-level scores.

My final question is what should public schools look like in five years? Public schools should be equal. What does it mean to be equal? As seniors leave different schools, they should all be at the same level. There should be equal numbers moving on to college, and similar test scores. This is possibly a controversial stance. To what extent should we instead focus on cultivating the top talent? Won’t smart students suffer, possibly experience lower performance in a system of equality?