It is surprising and disappointing to have a couple thousand-word article dismissed in less than a sentence, as "focusing on ancillary issues." That is what happened in last week's Gadfly. Perhaps, after a brief review offered below, some readers will find more of value than did Mr. Osberg.
In a response to Fred Hess, who wrote about what should be called public education, published by Phi Delta Kappan, I asked several questions regarding the hypocrisy that sometimes appears in what normally is called public education. Specifically:
1. What is public about a suburban district in which the price of admission to the local public schools is the ability to purchase a home for more than $1 million?
2. What is public about an inner-city school with an admissions test that screens out all students with mental disabilities and more than 95 percent of the students in the surrounding district, and proclaims that it serves only "the cream of the crop"?
3. What is public about preventing some inner city students from attending a magnet school just a few blocks from their homes that receives $1,500 per pupil more than the neighborhood school they attend, along with wealthy white students from the suburbs?
These all are examples of what is happening in what we call public education. These questions led me to wrestle with others. What admissions standards should be permitted for schools supported with public funds? And, why not support the charter approach, which brings together some of the best ideas of the country - opportunity, responsibility, and freedom/choice within some limits?
I concluded with several tentative suggestions, based on these questions. Having spent 33 years as an inner city teacher, administrator researcher, and advocate, I tried to discuss what really is happening, not just the theory. Anyone wanting to read more can contact me at [email protected], or see the February, 2004 issue of Phi Delta Kappan.
Joe Nathan
Center for School Change
Humphrey Institute
University of Minnesota