There was an in-class activity where we were divided into two groups based on the following situation: there are two schools in two different districts. One school is in an affluent neighborhood and receives about 10,000.00 in funding and were filled with high-SES students, while a neighboring school located downtown only receives around 5,000.00 in funding and had low-SES students. Our groups were assigned to us and divided into pro the allotted monies being distributed they way that they were and against the allotted monies being distributed they way that they were and why. I was on the against group.
Our group rationed that the monies were not being fairly distributed. We stated that the students from the more affluent school district had more available resources and thus more opportunities than the students from the poorer school district. We stated that if test scores were higher at the high-SES school and research showed that those students benefited from higher teacher to student 1:1, that funding should be cut from that district and more monies be allotted to the poorer district. We reasoned that the poor district could use the money for either hiring more qualified teachers, teacher training and certifications, and putting in more computers and school programs. We said that based on moral theory that it was immoral to stunt the opportunities of those who needed them the most. Our opposition stated that because of property taxes, those who lived in the better school districts paid more in taxes thus they should be able to have good schools, it was perfectly fair.
I think this was a tough call. My first instinct is to say, that's not fair. We are purposely and systematically limiting one group of peoples opportunities We are saying to these low-SES schools is, here are the metrics that you need to hit. We wont give you any help, money or ability to hit these but if you don't hit it, then you'll be punished. It seems kind of whack. I mean, if I'm a teacher what incentive do I have to teach in inner city Chicago or Detroit? I'm going to be overworked, underpaid and pretty much left to my own devices, plus if these kids can't learn or won't learn I could be fired. On top of that, I'm going to be living in one of the most crime ridden towns, make barely enough to survive and have to constantly watch out for my safety. A nice suburban, rich and homogeneous school district is starting to look pretty nice. But, this is a bit of a fallacy isn't? We're assuming here that all is dandy at Johnston high school or Prep Academy. I think it might actually be harder to teach at one of these schools because the expectations of parents is so much higher. As a teacher t one of these schools you should be able to single handily get their offspring into the Ivy three Harvard, Yale and Princeton. As a parent in one of these school districts with some extra cash to burn you might have more pull, hey you did fund that new gym at the school, so if you think this policy should fly because you have money to flex it should well.. fly. It would seem as though the teachers were a little owned by the parents if you will. Because, since the dawn of man, money speaks. I have the money so in some way I'm more important. My children are more important, and my monied friends children are more important as well. If you bus your kids to my district, well, we can't have that. I mean, what would this world come to then? We wouldn't want our bright little darlings mingling with those downtown kids now would we? Unless of course they play football or basketball, then thats okay. Every kid should get an opportunity, right? As you can see, I'm being a bit tongue and cheek, but that's to an extent how our society operates right? Its food for thought, as to why one child should be more important than another. And, what our proponents of rewarding high-SES schools are saying is that those kids are just more important because they have money. This isn't a matter between private school vs public school, as both schools are public. As I see it, there is nothing wrong with wanting the best for your child. If you want your specially little darling to get the top education and move on to another top university then by all means send them to private school. Where you can flex your money as much as you want, but if your student is a part of a public school system...I think its only a matter of principal to play fair.
What I think is interesting in this debate and of the digital divide is that it moves past just education and looks at how we value individuals. In the education policy article the author speaks of a test they constructed to see how computers were integrated into the lives of both low and high SES children. What the researches found was that both students used the computer fairly evenly, what was concerning was how the students were using the computers. The low-SES kids were using the Internet for more rudimentary and mundane tasks while the high-SES kids performed similar tasks, but also conducted research and synthesized information during their time on the inter net. It would seem then that the low-SES student would have a much harder time in college, if they get there, where conducting research and synthesizing information is critical than the high-SES student who are pretty used to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment