I often talk in this space about the determinative role personal, familial and communal culture play in making a school successful, or not. Almost always this is in the context of discussing the public schools, but I typically say at some point that there are some high-priced private schools that I would never send my kids to, even if I could afford to.
I was reminded of that yesterday in a conversation with N., a friend I hadn't had a chance to talk to in a while. I hadn't realized N. taught at a private high school I'll call Faber, to protect the guilty. N. was not looking forward to the start of school at Faber. N. painted a picture of Faber that made this pricey private academy -- a year's tuition there could buy you a new car -- that made it sound like every suburbanite's nightmare of inner-city public schooling. According to N.'s account, gang violence is about the only thing that inner-city schools have that Faber doesn't.
N. said learning doesn't take place at Faber. The school is an undisciplined warehouse for wealthy kids who come from undisciplined families. "The point of the place is to get these kids processed through, and get them a diploma," N. said.
"Social promotion for rich white people, sounds like," I said.
"Exactly," N. said.
N. went on to say that these kids are as lost as they can be. They come from badly broken families, in many cases. Quite a few of them are struggling with serious drug problems ("Where does a 13 year old get his hands on cocaine?" I asked; N. said from his older siblings). And sexually transmitted diseases are also a real problem in this school.
N. told me a couple of anecdotes about his students, whom he's come to pity as victims of their own selfish, screwed-up parents, that literally made my jaw drop. We're talking about teenagers from prosperous families who have no culture at all, except what they see on TV. I don't want to give any more details, because I don't want to make this school identifiable. In any case, the point is not to pick on this particular high school. The point is that apart from gangs, the only things separating Faber from a basket-case urban public school is the wealth and whiteness of its student body.
UPDATE: My friend the teacher has actually seen this entry, and writes to say:
I liked what you blogged today - one small correction. I'm actually looking forward to teaching at [Faber] again this year, despite its problems. I'm praying that God will allow me to be successful: it's just hard to know what that is.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Oh, Daniel, I wasn't using McCain's definition. I was using the Standard Liberal Definition of the word "rich," to wit:
rich: someone who has more money than I do.
super-rich: someone who has as much money as I wish I had.
My wife has taught in public schools and now in a fairly expensive private Christian school. My son has gone to two Christian schools, one Lutheran and one evangelical Christian.
My wife and I have both noticed a difference in the spirit and morale of the Christian schools as compared with the public. There were many good parents, kids, and teachers in the public school. But the problem parents and kids, teachers and administrators (usually less than 10%) created all kinds of problems for everyone else, and there was really no way to deal with them. There was no appeal to a common moral standard to say "this is the Christian thing to do or not to do, and we expect you to live up to it with our help."
In the Christian schools If there is a real problem kid or family or teacher, they are given chances to toe the line. But if they don't, they are gone ASAP. There is also a sense that daily worship and prayer, focusing on the transcendent, provides a unity of purpose and a teleological focus to everything that's done. It's about God and His glory, a purpose to which everyone: administration, teachers, students, and parents are supposed to submit. They don't always, of course, but the focus is real and helpful in keeping everyone on track, and getting people back on track if they get off.
What is the common purpose of public schools today? What counts as necessary and important knowledge, and why? Without a shared religious purpose focused on ultimate concerns I don't see how these questions can be answered, and if they can't be, how these schools can really know what they are doing. Surely such confusion at the top leads to chaos at the bottom, which is what we see in many districts.
Lancelot Lamar @ 8:31 PM writes:
"What is the common purpose of public schools today? What counts as necessary and important knowledge, and why?"
Lancelot, my friend, you do not know ? The common purpose of all public schools is three-fold:
1) To secure the power and tenure in office of the senior members of the teachers' union, and all the salaries, perks and privileges pertaining thereto;
2) To secure provincial and central-government funding for said unions; and
3) To bamboozle parents and politicians into thinking that the members of said unions (and their allies in "education schools") are the only ones capable of managing the task of teaching.
What counts as "necessary and important knowledge" ? Knowledge of which politicians are running for re-election, knowledge of whether they are sympathetic to union-leader concerns, knowledge of how much is required by said politicians in the form of campaign contributions, and knowledge of whether said politicians, once bought, will stay bought. The actual interests of pupils and parents are screamingly irrelevant, and only addressed at all for purposes of bamboozlement, as previously stated.
Why ? See Purpose # 1, above.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
I wasn't using McCain's definition.
No one does, except people with so many houses they can't keep track.
It should be easy for conservatives to define "rich:: they are the only ones benefiting from tax cuts and GOP economic policies.
Gee, Daniel. By your definition a one-income family of six living on Dad's $40,000 a year salary is "rich," since their four children qualify for the increase in the child tax credit. I'm sure they'd be glad to know that they're "rich," and thus have no reason to complain about rising energy and food costs.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.