• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Texas, Jack Z. Smith Column: When Schools Don't Work, Who's Failing Whom?

Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2006, 06:00 CST

By Jack Z. Smith, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Texas

Mar. 17--In the recent Texas primary elections, one of the most-discussed and cussed participants was Dr. James Leininger, a wealthy San Antonio physician who wasn't even a candidate.

Leininger and affiliated entities poured huge sums of money into efforts to defeat various Republican state legislators -- including state Rep. Charlie Geren of Fort Worth -- who had tried to alter a bill that included a school voucher proposal.

The bill ultimately died, but Geren triumphed over two voucher-supporting challengers in his March 7 primary race.

The archconservative Leininger passionately advocates using public tax dollars for vouchers that would help pay the costs of students attending private schools. He sees it as an alternative for students mired in public schools with poor academic ratings.

I'm dead-set against using public money for private schools. On a strongly related note, I'm troubled by the fact that voucher proponents love to describe public schools with terms such as "failing" and "poor-performing," thus leaving the implication that principals and teachers in these schools aren't performing up to snuff.

Sure, there are some second-rate principals and teachers in public schools. But that's also true of private schools.

What I can't understand is why we don't hear voucher supporters talk more about "failing" and "poor-performing" parents.

My long association with public education -- as a student, parent and journalist -- has convinced me that poor and often indifferent parenting is the No. 1 cause of lackluster student performance. And many mothers and fathers, while well-intentioned, lack the parenting skills, formal education and resources to help ensure their kids do well in school.

The sober reality is that high-performing students are far more likely than failing students to come from well-functioning middle-class or upper-class families in which the parents are well-educated, have high expectations for their children and have the resources to provide them many learning opportunities outside the classroom. Failing students are far more likely to come from low-income, dysfunctional families in which the parents are poorly educated and have lower expectations for their kids.

There are, of course, many exceptions to those general statements. But it's no coincidence that those public schools labeled as "failing" and "poor-performing" are disproportionately located in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods that have large numbers of parents (and, often, struggling single parents) with limited education. The high-performing public schools are far more likely to be located in areas populated by prosperous, better educated and more stable families.

I've visited numerous public schools as a parent, attendee at athletic events, journalist and guest speaker. It doesn't take X-ray vision to see that principals and teachers in public schools in poverty-plagued neighborhoods are forced to spend much more time drilling students in the basics and dealing with discipline problems.

Many students in these schools speak limited English. Some live in cramped apartments in which it's very difficult to find a quiet, well-lighted nook in which to study. Many come from poor families that frequently move, leaving the children continually displaced physically, emotionally and academically. Some struggling parents urge their children to quit high school and take a dead-end job so they can help put food on the table at home.

I've heard about these things firsthand as the parent of two daughters, Amanda and Amber, and a son-in-law, Wes, who teach in the public schools and are involved in student extracurricular activities. All three are bright, work their fannies off and care about the kids they teach. But, in that respect, they're no different than many other first-rate public school principals, teachers and aides that I have personally known (including my wife, Nina, a longtime library aide in an elementary school).

If voucher proponents truly want to see better performance in the public schools, they should support stronger financial incentives for excellent teachers to work in lower-performing schools, smaller class sizes in those schools and government legislation that will improve home life for children from disadvantaged backgrounds (such as expanded affordable-housing programs, better health care and a higher federal minimum wage, which would boost the income of many working-class families).

I'll leave voucher proponents with this parting thought: Approximately 90 percent of schoolchildren in America attend public schools. If these schools are doing such a poor job of educating our kids, why do we have the world's most powerful economy, why are we among the world's greatest democracies and why are we the envy of so many other nations?

Could it be that the public schools are doing a better job than we give them credit for?

-----

Copyright (c) 2006, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Texas

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

For information on republishing this content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.

Source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Fort Worth, Texas)

More News in this Category