One story I've been following with a mild degree of interest is the controversy over PTAs hiring teaching assistants in their schools. Apparently, for the last several years, certain well-to-do schools - mainly on the Upper East and Upper West sides - have been using PTA money to hire extra staff for their schools. The teaching assistants don't engage in instruction, but they are another set of eyes, ears, and hands around the classroom.
Frankly, the idea seems pretty good to me. The only problem is that the teaching assistants were not unionized, which brought about a complaint from the UFT, which brought about a change in policy from the DOE, which set off a lot of upset parents in those neighborhoods.
The disturbing thing to me has been the backlash against these parents who are trying to do the best they can for their children. As one woman wrote to the New York Times, "Thank you to the United Federation of Teachers for trying to level the learning field. "
Now don't get me wrong. I'm all about closing the achievement gap, but this is ridiculous. We should be trying to close the gap by bringing up the poor schools, not by bringing down the good schools. That's a solution out of Stephen Colbert's head. (Seriously, it is. Here's the link.)
We have to keep in mind that our goal is not just educational parity. Our goal is the best possible education for every student. That includes the rich kids. So while we should focus our efforts on raising the level of achievement for those on the bottom end of the spectrum, our efforts should not try to limit the options available to those on the top end.
Also, for what it's worth, it looks like they may have found a solution (to the teaching assistants issue, not the achievement gap. We're still working on that one.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
But don't discount the letter-writer's later comment: that if wealthy parents are forced to deal with the reality of public schools, they might bring to bear the necessary pressure on the system.
I work at a school in Manhattan that hires teaching assistants. While the school population is primarily middle and upper class, approximately 20 percent of the school population receives free lunch. Some of the wealthier parents raise the money for teaching assistants, but this benefits all students. I agree that it's not fair to other schools, but it seems like the best way to remedy this is not to take away the teaching assistants.
Allirab, thanks for readng.
You may be right on that front, but I'd still not say it's a good idea. Not to caricature your comment (too much), but couldn't we also argue that shooting someone in every family would motivate more people to fight handgun violence?
Obviously that's not what you're saying, but I'm hesitant to deny any child the best education they can receive, even if not every child is going to get it. Again, in my view, the goal is not necessarily parity. The goal is making sure that all children get the best possible education they can possibly receive.
Who is going to tie the shoelaces of the kids in Bed-Stuy?
It's a little disingenuous to say, "We have to keep in mind that our goal is not just educational parity. Our goal is the best possible education for every student. That includes the rich kids. So while we should focus our efforts on raising the level of achievement for those on the bottom end of the spectrum..."
Throwing around "achievment" with shoelaces when in fact those of us who taught in urban schools found the shoelace gap does exist and has an impact on the so-called achievment gap. But people focused on the AG like to say the key it better teaching and don't work to close the other end of the gap.
If rich schools are raising so much money from parents, let the NYCDOE try an experiment in at least some struggling schools they seem so eager to close by matching the highest level raised by rich schools.
What's missing from the debate is a candid discussion of Title I. Schools only qualify for Title I funds once the proportion of kids hits 40%. The schools with the PTA hiring are amongst the 10% of city schools that don't qualify. As a result, their per capita funding even with PTA donations is dramatically lower than average, especially in comparison with Bed Stuy and other low income neighborhoods. Same goes for city (Fair Student Funding) and state (Contracts for Excellence) funding formulae. Higher income and/or higher peforming schools get less money by design.
And class size. 28 kids in kingergarten? Why?
Post a Comment