As a current superintendent of schools, I am all for expanding choice options for students and families in Maine. I do not fear “choice,” nor do most of my colleagues. If done thoughtfully, choice brings a more competitive spirit to an institution that has not had to deal with much competition in the past and has become woefully complacent in many ways because of it.
That being said, I am also very aware of poverty in Maine. I grew up in Washington County. I spent four years in small schools in northern Piscataquis and Somerset counties which are no strangers to poverty themselves, and I am currently serving as superintendent of schools in RSU 3 (the Unity-Thorndike area in western Waldo County), one of the highest poverty-level districts in Maine.
The issue of poverty concerns me a great deal. To me, it gets back to the very heart of a philosophical question that was wrestled with as far back as our founding fathers — what is the purpose of public education?
Thomas Jefferson strongly believed that public education was the only way to ensure a strong democratic society by providing for an informed and intelligent ruling citizenry. Later, great thinkers such as Horace Mann and John Dewey made clear their beliefs that the only institution in America that could break the cycle of poverty for its citizens was public education.
Education is power and because of this, education becomes even more important to those who are powerless.
Gov. LePage’s push toward greater choice and options for students and families in Maine should be commended for its willingness to attack a very real problem. However, in this case, I believe the governor and Education Commissioner Stephen Bowen have gone too far, too fast in their rush to make sweeping changes in four years. I believe that they may have inadvertently missed a very important part of the choice discussion — poverty.
In Waldo County, the barrier of transportation goes hand-in-hand with poverty. The bill that is being suggested by Gov. LePage does not adequately address this barrier for Maine’s families who live in poverty.
I think a hypothetical example will illustrate my point: Belfast Area High School (in neighboring RSU 20) decides it wishes to open up its middle school to school choice options for students outside the district. Let’s say two students from RSU 3 are interested in attending. One student is from a family whose annual income is $100,000 per year while one student is from a family whose annual income is just $18,000. RSU 20 decides not to offer transportation to students from outside to attend their school choice options. The first student gets to go because his family can transport him — the second does not as her family can’t find a way to get her there.
I am not suggesting that this example is indicative of all possibilities; I am suggesting it does represent a possibility. Lawmakers are elected to represent the people of Maine and that means all people; most importantly, those people who may have no other voice.
I would recommend that lawmakers look closely at the underlying issues of poverty this bill does not address and amend the language to include that it be mandatory for those schools that choose to become “schools of choice” transport these children in some fashion. If charter schools can do it, so too can schools of choice.
With this adjustment in language, one of our underlying issues of poverty in Maine can be addressed — allowing all students and families who wish to make different choices, regardless of their income status, to do so. Without this additional language, I believe that the governor’s bill falls far short of its potential and may, in fact, be detrimental to the future of Maine’s youth who continue to live in poverty, and hence to Maine’s future as a state.
Heather Perry is superintendent of schools in RSU 3 in western Waldo County.
So we should shoot down the bills based on this flimsy hypothetical? Isn’t it possible that the poor student might be able to hitch a ride with the wealthier student? It is also very possible that the poorer child does have transportation that will get her to school every day. It is also possible that school districts will provide transportation if they choose.
LePage’s bills are hardly revolutionary in their scope. The changes being suggested are minor.
It also occurs to me that the poor student under this hypothetical is no worse off if we pass school choice. She will remain in the same school if she cannot find transportation. But if school choice passes, she will have the opportunity to attend another school if it can be arranged. If school choice does not pass…
Uh, yeah, so let’s pass a law that pits school against school, drives out more privileged higher performing kids and leaves poorer lower performing and more challenged kids behind. And “maybe the poor kid can ride witht he rich kid”? Give us a break. Like that will happen. These ridiculous bills are part of the LePage/Heritage Foundation national right wing agenda to attack public education. This along with using our tax dollars to fund church schools is disgusting. Everything this guy puts his hands on turns to sludge. The school choice thing also creates an expensive administrative hassle, especially for the receiving schools as they would have to create and implement a screening and quota process which they would have to constantly manage along with in-processing the new students, determining new staff needs, hiring new staff, etc. Before ranting endlessly about “improving public education,” they should first look at all that the schools are doing ALREADY. And that is a ton: MANY programs to help struggling learners under EXISTING Response To Interventions regulations, EXISTING implementation of the high state learning results standards, multiple batteries of standardized testing and local common assessment testing every school year, summer school, vocational programming, emphasis on higher order thinking and problem solving strategies, extracurriculars from sports, to music, to chess club, and on and on and on. Look at what the more successful schools are doing, and emulate it. Also, be real and understand that in the more poverty stricken areas, you will never get the same results as in the richer areas. That is just being real, something those in the ivory towers and with all these agendas need to return to.
“Doesn’t fear school choice” but, let me argue against that choice…..what an oxymoron. Quite frankly, students will be scrambling to get out of RSU 3 should this pass. As they should.
The grass is always greener – but color loses it’s attraction if you find that credit goes to the septic tank that it grows over. That is a general comment – not one aimed at either school district.
I think it would be fascinating to find out what superintendents and teachers in poverty stricken areas could do if they had the same funds/student as schools that are not so burdened (for reasons that are out of their control, such as size and location). There seems to be such a huge difference in public education right in our own state. Some have access to lacrosse, while others struggle to offer basic courses and music. In areas where transportation is a bigger issue than in other districts the sacrifices that must be made to accommodate those needs must compromise a school unit’s ability to offer those “carrots” that would create an even playing field. Without equality in offerings won’t we have one school district pitted against another? Will this be healthy and beneficial to our students?
Going “too far” and “too fast” seems to be a trademark of this governor and legislature. I would also add “without adequate consideration of relevant facts and information.” Going in where angels fear to tread will only work if they have done their homework and apply what they have learned.
What a crock. Believe me I know….I grew up in a poor county. The only hope I got was at the college level where I was fortunate enough to attend a college out of state. Our educational system is still not working. We need change. Do you have any better ideas? Then please speak up.
Really. I taught in a poor district and the kids have done incredible things, more advanced degrees and accomplishments than can be reasonably counted. My kids attended a rural district school and did pretty well by themselves at UMaine.
I guess my question is what are you doing back in Maine if this place has poor education and opportunities as you suggest?
What a joke. Just like when the Republicans had the nerve to call their dismantling of pollution controls the “Clear Skies Initiative”, this bumbling blaine house puppet trots out his school choice plan and calls it “Student’s First”. It is anything but that. Your local tax dollars for education is all they and their out of state handlers are interested in. If this governor were honest he would call his plan Greed First. You just have to look at his own family to see what kind of values he has. Look up nepotism. Its been a long year. I ask you. Would you buy a used car from this man? Do you trust him?
Parents who have the ability to move their children to what they perceive as “good schools” will do so in the best interests of their children. The result will be that districts perceived as being “poor economically” or “poor academically” will lose students (thus funds) as the better districts get overwhelmed. And they are going to be overwhelmed by students with parents who have the economic ability to transport them. The end result is only the middle class and upper class students will primarily be able to attend schools in other districts, so now there will be segregation based on socioeconomics in education. Real fair way to educate students – the rich will have better access and the poor will be stuck in failing, degraded schools. Reminds me of racial segregation in the old south. Our children have a right to an equal education. It would also be economically unsound for a district to fund transportation to/from other districts, it would also only benefit a few – we need to do what is in the best interest of all students.
I offer this alternative – if you want better schools for Maine students, establish a state regulated salary structure and benefits package that is the same for all teachers across the state. This would reduce the loss of good teachers to districts that pay better and perhaps not leave some poorer schools “stuck” with unqualified and underachieving teachers because the district can’t attract a replacement due to lower pay scales. I challenge everyone to look at the base pay for a teacher in Sad 3 with 5 years teaching experience to Cape Elizabeth; or for a more local novelty the 5 Town District that includes Camden, its a real eye opener.
Education should be equal for all students in Maine, not on a segregated level based on socioeconomic status.
I applaud what this superintendent had to say, “this bill will make poor schools and their students poorer while the rich schools/kids get richer”. I wouldn’t have bothered to lay on the praise for the thoughts and actions of LePage and Bowen, two men that only have themselves and their far right agenda to promote.
” I believe that they may have inadvertently missed a very important part of the choice discussion — poverty.”
The consideration of poverty in the promotion of vouchers and charter schools was never inadvertently omitted. It was deliberately omitted.
Ms Perry is indeed very naive.