We live in a democracy and the notion of permitting or not permitting a group to provide a service seems unusual. The service provided in terms of schooling is, I think, to educate a child to become the best and most productive citizen that he/she can be. The question of public or private education seems to be the choice that the parent makes according to their means and values. If we think of "public" in terms of, as in the Hess article, "those directly accountable to elected officials or funded by tax dollars and whose policies are the responsibility of local government, such as the local school district," then we single-mindedly exclude all those other educational environments, like religious schools, other private schools and charter schools. Maybe traditionally we do think of public schools as the ones that are free, but just as the Hess article proves with the tuition charged by inter-district choice plans, this is not always the case. I do think the underlying issue, like the books notes is the meaning of public. Does public mean open to all? Does it mean free education? Does it mean equal?
I think that if the state chooses to mandate the private sectors core subjects as in the Iowa schools article, even to the smallest degree, then that school should have the availability of the tax monies that the public schools receive. Although I lean toward accepting credible,upstanding entities to teach children like charter schools and religious schools, I am more traditionalist in my views as to whether these "businesses" are public in their definitions. Mary's presentation showed the slide, "private schools serve the individual and family and public schools serve the larger society." This proves the privacy of private schools.
So, who should be permitted to provide public schooling? I think, the providers must fulfill the definition of public, without the balance sheet interfering. Public in terms of directed by the state with monies allocated for education, for example. That is not to say private schools do not provide excellent schooling and produce outstanding citizens, but they are not "public" in their mission. Their services cannot be had by all in the public arena and must be labeled exclusive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDeb-
ReplyDeleteI think you are right that a lot of the arguement comes down to the definition. I was really thinking when Hess started debating what was considered public and how we determined this.
A personal experience that came to mind while doing this reading was the private school I attended in high school. They provided special education services for students who needed it. I don't think this is a common service private schools offer. The students had to go into a separate part of the building with no religious symbols. My understanding was that the public school district provided some money for the services and they were responsible for things like the IEP. This is an interesting public vs. private idea.
It was nice for my family because a private school was the best environment at the time for my brother with learning disabilities. He was accepted to the private school just like others, but was able to get the needed accomodations for him to succeed to his highest potential.
WWHD (What Would Hess Do?) in regards to his definition? :)
Steff-
ReplyDeleteWWHD! That is great!:) I think that the situation with your brother, receiving both private and public services, might cause Hess to take pause..I wonder what the governments idea of public is?
Yes, I like that WWHD, too! Actually, I think Steff's example supports Hess' perspective on the "blurring" of the lines. Deb, you said, "That is not to say private schools do not provide excellent schooling and produce outstanding citizens, but they are not "public" in their mission." I think Hess is saying that they ARE 'public' in their mission, in that producing outstanding citizens is in the public interest.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of public definately determines how schools are looked at. I do believe though that public should just have the mission of producing outstanding citizens like Prof. Scott mentioned. This is the goal for everyone in the education field and if it is not then they need to get out! Government needs to try and make sure to choose labels correctly and they may need to change some legislation to make sure more schols are labeled public.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I tend to look at private schools as a balance sheet rather than in the public interest, although of course I do know that they produce excellent citizens(I was a private school student for 10 years!). So, when I say private schools aren't public in their mission, it is probably an unfair statement, because I'm focusing on the business product ($) rather than the human product (child).
ReplyDelete