Nicole Hannah-Jones of the New York Times inadvertently makes a case for school choice – Reason.com

Yesterday I did something that no one should do. I tweeted.

There was a response to my message New York TimesNicole Hanna-Jones about her views on the status of the school choice debate. It turns out that he and I are heavily in agreement, although from the beginning it doesn’t seem like: “You already have a choice,” Hannah-Jones Said Wednesday. “Homeschool or payment tuition.”

The journalist is best known for his work on the 1619 project, although he has written extensively and commandingly on education in America. I replied, “The biggest contributing factor to segregation today is that children without choices get stuck in school on the basis of a zip code.” In other words, simply asking them to pay tuition coughs – especially when they are already paying for public schools through their tax dollars – is a method that in some sense would naturally be discriminated against by the class. Not everyone can afford to pay for both.

His response struck something interesting:

The rejection was confusing, it wasn’t really a rejection. This is not because he does not present a clear, well-defined argument. He does. This is because he basically outlines everything that the school’s favorite supporters are already standing behind. Her response says the key case for school choice.

“One of the central principles of school choice is that the zip code will not determine your school,” said Corey Dengelis, national director of research at the American Federation for Children and a senior fellow at the Cause Foundation, a nonprofit that publishes the website. . “The current government-run school system is largely unequal because families usually have to send their children to residential designated schools, even if it doesn’t meet their needs … if they didn’t know at first.”

Let’s start with the main point: we should “focus on allowing poor, black students to go to white, rich schools in neighboring municipalities.” In this regard, we very much agree. Kelly Williams-Bowler, a black woman who used her father’s address to enroll her children in a better district, offered no more suitable microbiology for this argument than the dilemma she faced এবং and went to jail for it. I wrote about his case here:

Since schools are a mirror image of their surroundings, poorer areas usually grow poorer schools with less resources and less efficient teachers. And often synonymous with “white vs. non-white,” as “rich vs. disadvantaged,” a minority heavy school is a prophetic marker that will achieve less results, according to the Brookings Institution. The U.S. Government Accountability Office found that 75 to 100 percent of the heavily black and Hispanic population were eligible for free or low-cost lunch at school. These students start life backwards, and rarely earn a living to reach their wealthy peers.

Someone like Williams-Bowler should never have been punished for that decision-it’s not just unreasonable on his face, because it shouldn’t be against the law.

“Ethnic minorities are already living up to the preference of school choice,” said Darrell Bradford, president of 50CAN, an organization that pushes children to ensure a good education no matter where they are on the road. “It is [most] Maybe you’re lying about where you live for the school you want to go to. Rich, poor, or otherwise, many communities of color are practicing school choice, they are simply practicing it in all sorts of ways that are not always legal. “

It should be done. And it turns out that Hannah-Jones and I also agree on at least partial solutions: eliminating exclusionary zoning and not financing students on the basis of local property taxes. He is absolutely right: both states harm poor, minority students and fail students – a position that school-choice proponents, regardless of political persuasion, actually take.

“If education were a criminal trial, school finance data would reveal huge discrepancies, which was a brutal video exposing systematically racist policies in need of reform,” wrote Aaron Garth Smith, director of education reform at the Reason Foundation, and Christian Bernard, an education policy analyst. Because the foundation, in Mountains. “Ideally, local resources should not play a role in determining the level of school funding. Dollars should instead be deposited at the state level and allocated transparently based on enrollment and student needs.”

The information so far is promising. According to a study conducted by researchers at Harvard University and the Brookings Institution, the school of choice initiatives can significantly improve the outcomes of students of color. The same goes for low-income students, who may otherwise be stuck in the vicinity with lower property tax collection and greater chances of success.

Then why the deviation? Bradford added, “I think Mrs. Hannah-Jones is a brilliant writer and has done a lot to shed light on some of the deepest and most troubling aspects of the American public education system.” (I would agree.) “For me, and for many school-of-choice advocates … we also believe that the government has a role to play in financing school and managing parts of the school, but it’s unhealthy to be monopolistic.”

Even still, the ideological overlap here is significant, and this is not at all surprising. As I wrote earlier, most black and Hispanic Democrats support school choice, probably because, unlike Hannah-Jones, they see core principles as beneficial to their community. Teacher unions have played a major role in disrupting that natural bipartisanship, pushing back against charter schools where teachers are less likely to unite.

What Is Surprisingly and somewhat disappointing is the fact that the issue has become unnecessarily polarized with an unbiased line, at a stage where even those who agree would not like to admit it.

“We’re on the same team,” Dengelis says. “Now let’s work together to remedy the injustices of the current system by directly funding students and actually empowering families. Above all, education funds are meant to educate children – not to persuade and protect a particular institution.”

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button