School choice offers hope of brighter futures
Consider the schools in the Fairmont area. There are public schools, parochial schools and students who are home-schooled. Some students who attend public school do not do so in the districts in which they actually live. Instead, they travel to neighboring districts. South of Fairmont, across the border, the North Union schools work under the Iowa system, not the Minnesota system.
All these variations have their supporters and critics. As do individual districts and schools. But an overarching point is that children are educated in different venues, in different ways. And they and their parents are already making choices.
So why all the hysteria over “school choice”?
President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for Education Secretary — Betsy DeVos — is an advocate of choice, because she believes it would offer alternatives to parents and students. And the argument behind school choice is that some schools are failing their students. Don’t those kids deserve better? Of course they do.
School choice is an entirely valid intellectual position to hold, despite what the vested interests on the opposite side of the case would have you believe. School choice does not mean the end of public schools. It does mean the end of stagnant thinking that says there is no other way to educate kids than through a public school behemoth that dare not be examined, adjusted, re-thought or even questioned.
In the Fairmont area, we all are generally proud of and happy with our various schools. That’s great. But this doesn’t mean people caught in bad schools elsewhere should be denied their options, their hopes and their futures.
COMMENTS