 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
              
|
John G. Craig Jr.: Father knows worst And Mom isn't much of an educational expert, either Sunday, April 04, 1999
The fundamental flaw in the education debate that continues to bemuse the nation and the state is a misunderstanding about what interested parents can and cannot do for schools.
John G. Craig Jr. is editor of the Post-Gazette.
The Academic Recovery Act introduced with much fanfare by Gov. Ridge last month is but the latest example. Its basic assumption is that the way to cure bad schools is to empower parents. Parents must be given more educational choices if bad schools are to be improved. When parents are free to choose what is best for their youngsters, they will move them to better circumstances, forcing the schools that their children leave to either improve or wither away.
It goes without saying that the likelihood of any such thing occurring is highly doubtful, but I'd like to consider one of its fundamental assumptions - that parents are the best judge of what a good education is. This idea is becoming more and more the vogue, with the home schooling movement being the ultimate example of this conceit.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of parents don't know anything more about how to educate children than they do about how to manage a baseball team - though if you ask, they have all manner of authoritative opinions on both. If you want to learn how to hit a tennis ball, you get lessons from a pro; if you want to play the violin, you get training from a musician; if you want to repair automobiles, you learn from a mechanic.
It is the same with a primary and secondary education. If you want to learn to read and speak French, you need a French teacher; if you want to learn computer programming, you need a teacher who understands and can teach computer science. You also need the services of a professional educator if you want these various subjects organized into some overall coherent theme. Professionals have been educating children throughout the world for centuries.
Why, then, if some schools are failing in Pennsylvania, and the governor says that they are on the basis of test scores, don't we just put them into the hands of better professionals? Why not just hire new teachers and superintendents with proven records of achievement in educating children? Why go through the rigmarole of "super-vouchers" for parents who want to move their children to a different district or a private school? Why not just kick out the bad teachers and principals and get on with it? The state can do it legally because the state has statutory responsibility for public education.
There are three answers to that. First, replacing teachers and administrators, despite what you may have heard, will cost a great deal of money. Most underachieving schools are in neighborhoods where people are poor and the children have a great many social problems; these schools are costly already, and making them better will be even more expensive.
Second, Gov. Ridge and the Republican Party have made it an article of faith that parents and local people know best when it comes to education. If the state of Pennsylvania took over schools in Philadelphia or Wilkinsburg and saw to it that they were the best in the state - something the state could do if it wanted - their assumptions about the power of amateurism in public education would be disproved.
Third, unionized school teachers are as much a target of the governor's team as are bad schools. They believe that one of the major reasons that schools are bad in places such as Philadelphia and Wilkinsburg is that they are now in the hands of educational professionals. They see these professionals as inflexible and the prisoners of routines and concepts that get in the way of educating the children in their charge. They believe that weakening the grip of teachers unions is part of making schools better.
Teachers unions may be a problem in some school districts, but it is obvious that parents and voters are even more responsible for what has been going on in failing districts. If they had a clue about what was going on, they would not have let the situation deteriorate to the point that it has. If they really knew what was best for Philadelphia and Wilkinsburg schools, they would have done something.
To me, the answer is as simple as it is obvious. Educating poor children is a particular problem requiring particular and professional attention. If the governor and the Legislature want to do something about failing schools, they should give notice, set a deadline and, when it is not met, they should make the schools wards of the state and assume the considerable cost involved in making them meet the needs of the youngsters in their charge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
