What makes a Democrat, Part 1 - Public Education
Part 1 - Public Education
TL;DR: Public Schools are one of the single most important institutions in the country. They provide daycare, a skilled labor force, essential infrastructure, education, even *food,* vital to every person in this country.
Teachers are heroes, and should be recognized (and paid appropriately) for what they do. Every. Single Day.
While we're talking about reopening schools, schools are in (another) impossible position.
Do they open completely, move to full in-person learning, and risk causing a massive spread of COVID-19?
Do they move fully online and risk an entire year's worth of students falling behind in their classes?
Do they do a mix of both, and get heat from both sides of the issue, no matter what they do?
Right now is a moment, as has happened some many other times, where a nationwide crisis gets out of hand, and all of a sudden it's the sole job of schools - mostly public schools - to solve it for us.
In an extraordinary year, this feels like an ordinary, familiar, story. For decades, public schools have been the first target for budget cuts in hard times, only to find that when things get better, most of that funding doesn't come back. This has been especially bad since the 2008 financial crisis.
So what? Well there's all the evidence in the world that funding matters for how well schools perform. That is, how well students learn, how many students graduate, and how well those students do once they do graduate.
Being a teacher is also incredibly hard. It's hard to become a teacher, it's hard to be a teacher, the requirements and pressures are high, while the salary has never kept up with the private sector, and falling school budgets keep leaving teachers with more students and less resources in aging classrooms with fewer and fewer supplies.
Seriously, ask any teacher you know how often they, or someone they work with, has bought basic supplies for their class out of their own pocket.
All of this is leading to a critical shortage of teachers in the US, which will only make class sizes bigger, and all the above problems worse.
Do they move fully online and risk an entire year's worth of students falling behind in their classes?
Do they do a mix of both, and get heat from both sides of the issue, no matter what they do?
Right now is a moment, as has happened some many other times, where a nationwide crisis gets out of hand, and all of a sudden it's the sole job of schools - mostly public schools - to solve it for us.
In an extraordinary year, this feels like an ordinary, familiar, story. For decades, public schools have been the first target for budget cuts in hard times, only to find that when things get better, most of that funding doesn't come back. This has been especially bad since the 2008 financial crisis.
So what? Well there's all the evidence in the world that funding matters for how well schools perform. That is, how well students learn, how many students graduate, and how well those students do once they do graduate.
Being a teacher is also incredibly hard. It's hard to become a teacher, it's hard to be a teacher, the requirements and pressures are high, while the salary has never kept up with the private sector, and falling school budgets keep leaving teachers with more students and less resources in aging classrooms with fewer and fewer supplies.
Seriously, ask any teacher you know how often they, or someone they work with, has bought basic supplies for their class out of their own pocket.
All of this is leading to a critical shortage of teachers in the US, which will only make class sizes bigger, and all the above problems worse.
But why Public Schools?
1. They take in everyone from a given community. Any admissions-based school is by definition, exclusive. Whether it's for academic achievement, cost, ability to get to and from the school, or specific religion, non-public schools isolate communities from themselves, and don't serve everyone, weakening them both by building divisions and leaving some students behind.
2. They have accountability. One of the big reasons there's even a push for charter and private schools is to somehow bend, break, or otherwise get around protections built into public schools.
3. They're free. This allows anyone and everyone to attend them regardless of means, and gives every student an equal chance. This point is hugely important.
Here's where it gets partisan.
As a Democrat, I firmly believe that we should invest in our schools. Investment in education has a direct economic benefit.
I don't object to private schools also being an option, but I do object strongly to private and charter schools receiving public funds - unless they're given funds without public schools losing funding. You want to add additional funding for charters, go for it. But charter schools, and private schools even more importantly, should not receive a single cent if it's a cost to public schools
I also believe that teachers should be paid appropriately, which is flat-out not what they're making now, and that teachers should be actively recruited and trained in a way that actually competes with private sector jobs. Teachers are responsible for our future, our children's future, and the future of our country. We should be very motivated to make sure we're recruiting good people, and have been *very* lucky up to this point that some many incredible people have devoted their lives to teaching, despite the hardships.
At this point, many teachers work multiple jobs, and/or are also actively on Federal programs like food stamps - which is not only messed up, but has an economic cost all its own.
If you want to send your children to private school - by all means, go for it. But even if your children aren't going there, the importance of public school districts to the community and the local and larger economy can't be overstated.
As a Democrat, I firmly believe that we should invest in our schools. Investment in education has a direct economic benefit.
I don't object to private schools also being an option, but I do object strongly to private and charter schools receiving public funds - unless they're given funds without public schools losing funding. You want to add additional funding for charters, go for it. But charter schools, and private schools even more importantly, should not receive a single cent if it's a cost to public schools
I also believe that teachers should be paid appropriately, which is flat-out not what they're making now, and that teachers should be actively recruited and trained in a way that actually competes with private sector jobs. Teachers are responsible for our future, our children's future, and the future of our country. We should be very motivated to make sure we're recruiting good people, and have been *very* lucky up to this point that some many incredible people have devoted their lives to teaching, despite the hardships.
At this point, many teachers work multiple jobs, and/or are also actively on Federal programs like food stamps - which is not only messed up, but has an economic cost all its own.
If you want to send your children to private school - by all means, go for it. But even if your children aren't going there, the importance of public school districts to the community and the local and larger economy can't be overstated.
I am also a Liberal Democrat because I believe we should take this further, and that trade schools and state colleges should also be tuition-free. That's a debate in and of itself, but there's a strong argument for it. Not only does it allow more access to college, but it both means we'll have a stronger skilled workforce, and we'll counter the growing crisis of student loan debt.
For the counterpoint -
The first place I saw schools targeted for funding cuts was in California during budget negotiations, where then Governor Schwarzenegger was hell bent on cutting the state budget.
A fairly classic Republican Governor, Schwarzenegger supported voucher programs, cuts to education spending (he called it "slowing rising costs"), and supported allowing schools to hold school prayer (we'll get to that).
And now, President Trump has appointed a Secretary of Education whose life goal is to destroy public education, and replace it with a privatized version, preferably conservative Christian dominated. Above I talked about how schools are underfunded after over the past decade (arguably long before that) and Trump has continued to cut funding to public education for his entire term.
I'm calling out Trump here in particular, but his education policies (particularly cutting public education in favor of voucher programs) are very consistent with the Republican platform. The main focus of Republican education policy has been to discredit public schools - often by cutting their funding repeatedly, and then accusing them of failing - in favor of charter and private schools.
This also includes pushing for school prayer and Bible education being a part of public schools. The Constitution is very clear on that, which covers public schools, and there's the added wrinkle that there are a lot of religions out there, not just Christian ones.
As another added wrinkle, like many Republican policies, their proposals to help lower-income families afford private schools and colleges is really built around options like free savings accounts and different kinds of tax credits. Neither has any benefit whatsoever to a family that doesn't have the money in the first place.
As for other party options -
The Green Party more or less follows the same policies Liberal Democrats do on education. They make many of the same arguments I have above too. They do take it further though in outright opposing any sort of for-profit education. Personally I don't agree with that, as long as private options don't take any funding from public education.
The Libertarian Party takes the opposite stance, and believes entirely in a Free Market approach. From my perspective, this simply doesn't solve issues of inequality, access, or meaningful accountability for schools. There are some truly awful businesses out there who do just fine in the free market.
The America First Party strongly advocates for Public Charters, which is a far more aggressive version of the Republican party stance, but not particularly different.
The Constitution Party flat out says "Education cannot be separated from religious faith," but otherwise more or less follows the Libertarian approach.
To sum up -
This may not be representative of all Democrats - but my purpose here was outlining how I've come to understand education in America, and how that is one of the reasons that I consider myself a Liberal Democrat.
Comments
Post a Comment