Education Debt

I have many concerns in regards to the educational system and its history of educating students of color, particularly African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. I am not overly concerned with the terms used to describe the situation; although I do see the difference in referring to the issue of disproportionate numbers of minority youth not having access to high quality learning opportunities as “educational debt” as opposed to the “achievement gap”.

What I wonder about the most are the intentions of the people who make the decisions regarding public education. I wonder if they really believe that they are doing what is best for all children, if they are only concerned with what happens to a certain segment of the population, or if they care at all about any of the youth their decisions impact. I wonder if getting caught up in arguing about the semantics of the phrases used to describe the issue is an intended distraction from the issue itself; I also wonder if popularizing the use of the term “educational debt” instead of “achievement gap” would cause anyone to act any differently.

When I hear people say things like, “I use the term ‘achievement gap’, I do it because I’m so use to saying it”, it makes me think about people’s actions, and how much of what they do is based on how they have been more or less conditioned to think and act in a certain way.

You would think that many decisions that do not seem to have the best interest of the youth in mind could be justified by simple economics. But the cost estimates from the Closing the Gap: Early Childhood Education article on the ASCD website state otherwise, noting that “conservative cost-benefit models show that for an initial investment of roughly $15,000 per child, the return to society was roughly $250,000, or $17 for every dollar invested” (Nelson).

The only reason that makes even the slightest bit of since as to why the public is not strongly advocating for investing in early childhood education is that are simply not aware of the cost advantages of doing so. You would like to think that the welfare of children should be enough motivation, but it obviously is not since the current system is operating as it has been for years with little resistance. I will do my best to help change that by spreading the word about the benefits – both social and economic – of investing in children’s education early on.

School Funding Formulas

My biggest concern is how much of the funding for public schools comes from property taxes, and state and local sources. This seems to an unfair burden on communities where poverty is concentrated.

I think the issue of public education should be more nationalized, and an effort should be made to show how the lack of educational opportunities for some parts of the population affects us as a nation. I think there should be some form of vertical equity applied, and I do not feel that it should be seen as being unequal to allocate more resources to where it is most needed. Nobody is stressing that point about children born (or adopted) into wealthy families with a ton of resources.

I would not be opposed to funding public schools through any certain means, but I would change how those funds are distributed. I think that in terms of taxation, collecting from sales tax would be the most fair to the taxpayer; but it monies are collected through property and income taxes, it should not only go to the schools within that region, but be distributed in terms of need until a level of parity is reached in all public learning institutions in America. Fundraising should be encouraged, but I feel that schools in lower income areas should look more into raising funds from sources outside of their communities where there is more disposable income. Grants from foundations should be allowed, but distributed more evenly, or even favor schools with higher needs. I also think that businesses and corporations should share more of the responsibility of funding schools, especially since they are often the beneficiaries of strong educational systems by having a highly educated talent pool to hire employees from.

I also believe that progress and achievement levels should factor into how much a school is funded. The most effective schools should receive all the funding they require to operate, and those underperforming should be subject to being completely restructured or closed altogether. I know this would raise concerns as to what would be considered satisfactory levels of achievement and progress; I feel this issue should be addressed through national discourse and some form of a voting process to determine acceptable standards.

I believe that my plan is generally equitable in a relative sense; children with less access to a quality education should be given the opportunity to gain access to one, and learning institutions with less resources should be allotted more funding to acquire more. My primary concern is children - all children - and all should have the same opportunities to learn. A child's access to a quality education and subsequent future should not be determined by the economic situation they were born into.

Observation #2

I am observing at the afterschool program at Pillsbury House in south Minneapolis. I am encouraged - as a matter of fact expected - to participate and interact with the children in the program as opposed to just sitting back and observing what is going on. So far this has included basic interactions with the children, reading, talking, and playing games with them. I recently have been cleared to volunteer through background checks and only been in to observe one day for a few hours so far.

The program seems to be more geared towards activities than learning and teaching, even though they do have a library, and there is time scheduled for the kids to read and do their homework. I have not yet been able to identify any type educational philosophies being followed; I will continue to look for clues or examples of any educational philosophy.

A majority of the time is allotted for creative play; there is even a block of time scheduled for the youth to work with professional artists. There is also free time when the kids are encouraged to draw, build things with toys (such as Legos), and make things with their hands. The staff spends most of their time interacting with children, making sure the kids are being kept busy, and helping them with their homework, reading, creative projects, or whatever else they are doing. The staff also keeps busy making sure the kids are behaving, staying on task, and working to resolve any conflicts between them. All of the staff seem to have good relationships with the children in the program, and the children seem to like and respect the staff.

The spaces where the children spend most of their time are generally wide open spaces; one is set up with tables and chairs, has a few separate rooms connected, and is next to the kitchen, while the other space is completely wide open and has toys in the room where they can run around freely and burn off some energy.

The question that I have after my first observation is basically, "What is all this about?" I wonder if the activities have any other purpose than keeping the children occupied until their parents pick them up. I am hoping to get a better idea of what and why in regards to the programming as I spend more time there.