Subscribe to our Blog
Do schools exist to serve their students, or vice versa?
Diane Ravitch has written this article explaining why she disapproves of the Parent Trigger, a new measure in some US states that allows “a majority of parents in a low-performing school to sign a petition that leads to various sanctions for the school: firing all or some of the staff, turning the school over to charter management, or closing the school”. Here is the main thrust of her argument.
- “To me, a public school is a public trust. It doesn’t belong to the students who are currently enrolled in it or their parents or to the teachers who currently teach in it. All of them are part of the school community, and that community needs to collaborate to make the school better for everyone. Together, they should be able to redesign or create or discontinue programs and services. But collaboration is not the same as ownership. The school belongs to the public, to the commonwealth. It belongs to everyone who ever attended it (and their parents) and to future generations. It is part of the public patrimony, not an asset that can be closed or privatized by its current constituents.
- “If a school is dysfunctional, those who are in charge of the district are obliged to find out why and to do whatever they can to fix the problems. If the principal is incompetent, he or she should be removed. If there are teachers who are incompetent, they should be removed. If the school is doing poorly because it lacks necessary resources, the district is obliged to do whatever it can to improve the school.
- “But giving the current parents the power to close the school or to hand it over to a private management company is akin to saying that whoever uses any public facility should have the same power, the power to transfer control to a private entity. It means if those who use Central Park in Manhattan don’t like the way the city of New York takes care of it, they should be able to sign a petition and privatize it. If a majority of those who patronize a national park sign a petition, they should be able to hand control of the park over to private managers. This makes no sense.”
In my opinion, the Central Park comparison is not a valid one since there is no law compelling people to send their kids to Central Park, nor do the services provided in Central Park heavily influence its visitors’ life outcomes.
But enough about me. Do you agree that public schools are a public trust, and that parents should not have a say in their operation?
Public schools are not a public trust. Never have been, in the first place. Perhaps a social contract, but not a public trust.
Define is Wikipedia: “The concept of the public trust relates back to the origins of democratic government and its seminal idea that within the public lies the true power and future of a society; therefore, whatever trust the public places in its officials must be respected.
One of the reasons that bribery is regarded as a notorious evil is that it contributes to a culture of political corruption in which the public trust is eroded. Other issues related to political corruption or betrayal of public trust are lobbying, special interest groups and the public cartel.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust
Yeah, it sure sounds like a public education system with special interest groups, lobbying that amounts to a cartel.
In the legal sense, public trust dates back to common law. ” Regardless of how we trace its ancestry the Public Trust Doctrine - the principle of common law directing who owns and manages natural resources - is deeply rooted in our culture and history. Some historians have argued that hunting of game, fishing and wildlife management responsibility components of the doctrine have their origins in English common law dating back to the Saxon invasion of England in about 450 AD and maintained after the Norman Conquest in 1066.[1] It is clearly evident that elements of the doctrine related to fish, shorelines and water have come to us from codified dictates enacted by the Roman Emperor Justinian in about 530 A.D.[2]
The English monarchy added strength and recognition to the public trust doctrine with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. Changes in English common law enacted in 1641, and additional modifications enacted by Colonial Ordinance in 1647,[3] reinforced the public trust doctrine concept that government has an affirmative duty to administer, protect, manage and conserve fish and wildlife; hence, government cannot relinquish its obligations to a popular vote to establish administrative management, protection, and conservation practices for renewable wildlife and marine resources. In other words, ballot measures cannot supersede governmental (sovereign) rule.”
http://www.nrpa.com/public_trust.htm
To me a public school is not a public trust. Never has been and never will be. Ravitch should know better but those within the public education system, will do anything to keep the power from the parents. that once had the parents and it communities in charge of education.