logo-Essay by Example: Essay Writing Help and Examples



free essay examples and essay writing help  Home
Essay Writing Tutorial: Free Essay Writing Guide  Essay Writing Tutorial
free essay examples and essay writing help  Free Essay Examples
Essay Frequently Asked Questions  Essay Writing FAQ
Collection of essay writing resources  Essay Writing Resources
Share your essay  Share Your Essay
About EssaybyExample  About Us

Bookmark and Share


California's public school system - Sample Urban Economics Term Paper

This sample urban economics paper was written for an upper division elective course. It suggests that California's public school system can be fixed by employing more effective principals in urban areas, increasing the number of charter schools and utilizing a voucher system. The paper analyzes current events to diagnose the problem and offers statistics and anecdotes to argue its point. This sample essay would be a good reference for students who want to use current events to make an economics-related argument.

What becomes of the broken schools? An examination of educational reform in California

Introduction

In March 2010, the Obama Administration announced the finalists for its $4.35 billion Race to the Top educational stimulus funds. California wasn't one of them; the state legislature failed to "embrace the kind of changes-to give parents more choice and to penalize failing schools-sought by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan," according to Mercury News (Noguchi 1). While the state promises to compete in the next round of funding, it is difficult to predict if it will meet the government's strict deadline. But even if California does not receive Race to the Top grants, it should still undertake extensive reform to improve its school system - many California students, especially those in urban areas, suffer from a poor educational environment. The state can do so by bringing effective principals to urban areas, opening additional charter schools and providing vouchers that would give low-income parents choices when deciding their child's future.

A broken system

Why do California schools need reform at all? The numbers tell a sad story. In 2009, the state's fourth graders ranked 46th in the nation based on math test scores, and 49th for reading. The rankings, which are published by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), make a compelling case for change - the state is failing to give its students an adequate education. But while the entire state ranks poorly compared to the rest of the nation, a closer look at California reveals that urban schools are producing most of the lowest-performing students. For instance, "even as more local schools are reaching state targets on benchmark tests, nearly three-quarters of Los Angeles Unified schools fall among the state's lowest performing campuses," the Contra Costa Times reported on May 13 (Llanos, 1).

Urban public schools and the problem with truancy

Why do urban schools have such a poor record? The answer partly comes from funding. After California voters passed Proposition 13 in 1978, funding for schools shifted from "local property taxes to state general funds." Likewise, the state set revenue limits for each school district to comply with court decisions that said the prior funding system was unfair. These two developments should theoretically have helped urban schools - money would now come from the state, not from property taxes and the funds would be equitably distributed. Unfortunately, schools are funded based upon Average Daily Attendance (ADA). Since ADA is lower in urban areas due to truancy, urban schools thus receive less funding from areas with better attendance. Indeed, schools have found that "Each student absence (whether the absence is excused or not) costs districts an estimated $25 to $40 per day . . . Districts that have done the math found more than $1 million eaten away in a single school year because of student absences" (Ramus, 1).

Schools and cities have tried a variety of methods to combat this problem. Some urban schools have instituted sweepstakes for new cars or televisisions to keep students in class (Ramus 1). Others adopt a tougher approach. More recently, the Richmond city council adopted a new daytime curfew to try and keep students off the streets (Tucker 1). The problem is especially dire in that city because "On any given school day, an estimated 450 Richmond teenagers are truant" (Tucker 1). With so many teens out of class, the city's schools lose significant revenue while its students risk becoming involved with violent crime. However, these curfew laws are often difficult to enforce; in Dallas, where a similar curfew exists, "70 percent of the students cited [failed] to show up for court" (Tucker 1). But given that schools face significant financial losses due to absences, they can't be blamed for trying to prevent truancy.

Should teachers be paid more in urban schools?

But California's dismal test scores reveal that even students who attend school often have a poor learning experience. As a result, some have argued that higher salaries for those who teach at urban schools will improve student performance. They claim that greater financial incentives will attract better talent to these institutions. However, as Kati Haycock and Eric Hanushek argue in the journal Education Next, higher pay must not be awarded indiscriminately. Indeed, if a district were to offer higher pay, it should ensure that "Pay incentives should be offered only to teachers of proven effectiveness, and a portion should be in the form of bonuses contingent on continuing high performance" (Haycock, Hanushek 7). Their reasoning is simple - bad teachers like more pay just as much as good teachers. Moreover, even if teachers were offered higher pay, there is no guarantee they will teach in an urban district. "Higher pay alone might not be enough to solve the problem. Some districts have found that even large financial incentives, in the absence of better working conditions, fail to attract and retain strong teachers in high-need schools" (Haycock, Hanushek 7). The authors explain that urban districts are often manned by inadequate administrators, which keeps the best teachers away. "Like any other professionals, great teachers place great value on a positive and supportive working environment characterized by strong leadership and opportunities to collaborate with colleagues" the authors explain (Haycock, Hanushek 7). They cite a solution the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools came up with to deal with teacher inequity:

The district transferred high-performing principals into targeted schools, allowed them to handpick a team of strong administrators, and gave them the opportunity to recruit up to five highly effective teachers from a roster of volunteers identified and recruited by the district. Everyone who transferred received substantial financial incentives, but, just as important, all were offered the opportunity to work with a team of teachers and administrators committed to achieving success. (Haycock, Hanushek 7).

Comments on an education blog that featured the authors' work seem to confirm their assertions about leadership. One teacher wrote that he would transfer to an inner city school if he had a good principal to work with. "Heck, give me a really good principal and I'll take a cut in pay," he added. Another teacher complained that poor administrative support forces otherwise good teachers to quit. She explained that "There is little time allowed within the work day for collaboration/mentorship" and that "If we are going to be effective teachers, we make up the difference in time at home-off the clock." Such pressure does not help the educator according to this teacher:

Let me tell you what happens to "ineffective" and unqualified teachers. At the end of the first year, 1/3 of them quit citing issues of discipline and lack of resources. It is clear that these teachers are NOT supported. Therefore another batch of inexperienced and "ineffective" teachers arrive at the school the next year.

Enlightened leadership it seems could be one key to helping inner-city districts improve the experiences for teachers and students alike. It could also allow districts to improve without taking more significant - and expensive - structural changes.

Charters give disadvantaged groups a choice

Increasing the number of available charter schools in California is another way to help improve student performance in urban areas. Charter schools, as they are described by the National Education Association (NEA), are publicly funded institutions that "have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools." These schools operate on a freer basis "in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each charter school's charter" (NEA 1). Because charter schools are held accountable for their actions, those that fail to perform can be shut down. Thus, the school administrators have an incentive to helping students excel academically.

How do charter schools work in practice? Some specialize in certain subjects like math or art. Others try to instill a sense of responsibility into both child and parent. The KIPP San Francisco Bay Academy is a good example of a successful charter. This charter middle school requires students and parents to sign a contract before they can join or attend the school. The contract, a "Commitment to Excellence," requires students to be at school every day by 7:30 a.m. and to "always work, think, and behave in the best way I know how." Likewise students agree to complete all their homework every night and to call their teachers if they have a problem completing assignments. Moreover, parents commit to always make themselves available to their children and to read with them every night. Teachers are also involved in this commitment. According to the school's website, instructors use "individual student data [so that] instruction is targeted to better meet individual student needs. In addition, teachers use tracking tools that keep both students and teachers informed of standard mastery and progress at the individual level." The goal of this school-wide commitment is to give students "an appreciation for the humanities" and a strong desire to "serve the community in which they live."

Because charter schools have more freedom in the way they to teach, they tend to have varying student performance. According to a 2009 study by Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), on a nationwide basis "17 percent [of charter schools] provide superior education opportunities for their students . . .nearly half of the charter schools nationwide have results that are no different from the local public school options . . . [and] 37 percent deliver learning results that are significantly worse" (CREDO, 3) than if the student remained in a traditional public school. While the number of schools that perform worse than traditional public schools is sobering, the CREDO report explains several hopeful trends. For one, "two subgroups fare better in charters than in the traditional system: students in poverty and [English language learner] students" (CREDO, 9). The study's authors explain that this success is remarkable:

This is no small feat. In these cases, our numbers indicate that charter students who fall into these categories are outperforming their [traditional public school] counterparts in both reading and math. These populations, then have clearly been well served by the introduction of charters into the educational landscape. (CREDO, 9).

CREDO's findings indicate that "Charter schools that are organized around a mission to teach the most economically disadvantaged students in particular seem to have developed expertise in serving these communities" (CREDO, 9). This appears to be the case for schools like KIPP San Francisco Bay Academy. The school reports that it is one of the highest performing middle schools in the city. For example, the percentage of the school's 7th graders who were proficient in math outperformed the state average by far: 73 percent to 43 percent. Clearly, if the state were to add more charter schools, it should focus on trying to replicate the methodology of those like KIPP San Francisco Bay Academy.

Currently, charter school organizers cannot open as many schools as they would like in California because the state imposes a cap on growth . While the cap was implemented as a political compromise, it now harms students who live in urban areas and want to secure a better education. Indeed, the CREDO report explains that "States that have limits on the number of charter schools permitted to operate, known as caps, realize significantly lower academic growth than states without caps" (CREDO 6). By removing the cap, the state could not only improve the well-being of its urban students, but ensure that the charter school experiment can improve further.

Charters give disadvantaged groups a choice

If a poor family living in a California urban area wants to send their children to school, they have few options. They could send their children to their local public school, but urban institutions tend to be among the worse schools in the state. They could also apply to a charter school, but these schools may not be located nearby or may have a long waiting list. The final option, private school, is usually out of reach because it is prohibitively expensive. However, if California had a school voucher program, poor families could be freed from the failing public school system.

Voucher programs are one of the most controversial school reform options (more on the debates below), however there is no question they give parents more choices. Typically, a voucher is a scholarship given to low-income families, who use it to offset the cost of private school tuition. In Washington, D.C. for instance, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program offers up to $7,500 scholarships per child for families making around $40,000 a year. If California were to offer a similar program, private school would likely be more affordable - nationwide, the average private elementary school tuition was $6,733 while the average private high school tuition was $10,549 . Moreover, in places where they have been implemented, vouchers are popular - according to its website, the D.C. program awarded nearly $76.3 million in scholarships to 7,300 students. In the 2008-2009 school year, the program worked with over 2,000 students alone. Proponents add that vouchers also might improve the entire school system as a whole by making schools compete against each other. In theory, if students were given an equal chance to attend a private or public school, public schools would take aggressive measures to improve themselves in order to attract families. Thus, the overall education system would benefit.

But even with a voucher, a low-income family will likely have to pay some tuition. They will make this additional sacrifice because private school is worth the cost. The Council for American Private Education cites some 2003 NAEP statistics that reveal students are better prepared in basic subjects when they study at a private school. For instance, 88 percent of private school students had reached a basic achievement level in fourth grade math, compared to only 76 percent of public school students. Likewise, 44 percent of fourth grade private schools students were proficient in math, compared with 31 percent of their public counterparts. The numbers are also similar for fourth grade reading - 80 percent of private schools students were at a basic achievement level, compared to 62 percent of public school students; for those who were proficient at reading, the numbers were 48 percent to 30 percent respectively. The reading numbers are even more striking when students reach eighth grade. According to the NAEP, 53 percent of private school students were proficient in reading, compared to only 30 percent of public school students. This last set of statistics is notable - by the time they are ready to enter high school, over half of private school eighth graders are proficient at reading, yet less than a third of public school eighth graders are. Since strong reading skills are necessary for high school and beyond, the public school system does students a disservice by not giving them the proper tools to succeed.

While private school students outperform their peers at public schools, giving poor families an option for private education is a politically charged issue. The NEA, the largest labor union in the United States, is opposed to vouchers. Their website explains that in places where vouchers have been instituted, "a two-tiered system has been set up that holds students in public and private schools to different standards." Likewise, the union argues that "vouchers were not designed to help low-income children" and instead a ploy to introduce free-market principles into education. Indeed, the union adds that the free-market system would be disastrous for students. "A pure voucher system would only encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification in our society. America's success has been built on our ability to unify our diverse populations," the union writes. The NEA also contends that there is a constitutional case against vouchers because "About 85 percent of private schools are religious. Vouchers tend to be a means of circumventing the Constitutional prohibitions against subsidizing religious practice and instruction."

These arguments have successfully been used to defeat or hobble voucher programs in California and elsewhere. In 2000, California voters rejected Proposition 38, which would have provided $4,000 vouchers for students. The measure was a spectacular failure, with 70.5 percent of the electorate voting against it. Its primary opponents included major unions like the California Teachers Association and the SEIU. At the time, the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that the "unprecedented experiment" would not necessarily improve schools. In a worst case scenario, "unqualified or sleazy operators" might try and "exploit this potentially rich and lightly regulated program" (Chronicle 1). More recently, Congress has decided to discontinue offering the D.C. Scholarship Program for new students in the nation's capital. Thus, while vouchers are a viable way of improving urban students' academic performance, they are likely politically untenable at least for the foreseeable future. In order for a voucher program to succeed, voters would have to understand how unions are fighting for their own survival and not "for the children" when they fight against school-choice programs like vouchers.

The arguments against vouchers are so heated because there is much at stake. If vouchers were to take hold across the United States, they could effectively threaten public education as an institution. Low-income families could afford to send their students to higher performing private schools, effectively robbing public schools of constituents. In California, with fewer students attending public schools, these schools would get less federal funding and would probably become less effective. There could be a wave of public school closures across the state and the nation, which would endanger the jobs of teachers and administrators. The unions which represent teachers are well-aware of this doomsday scenario and have consistently fought hard against vouchers. Yet this resistance does nothing for students. California unions were unwilling to compromise when it came to implementing Race to the Top reforms, yet they also don't want students leaving the failing public schools for better, private alternatives. While union members may preserve their jobs by fighting reform, they continue to let down the students whose interests they claim to represent.

Conclusion

California's public schools are failing to give students, especially those in urban areas, the necessary tools to succeed and rise above their circumstances. The reforms discussed in this paper effectively help students without exacerbating California's deep budget deficit. Indeed, if these reforms were implemented, students' human capital would greatly rise, making them more productive, innovative workers. This new generation of workers would help California return to its former status as an economic powerhouse that set an example for the nation.

But just reforming how schools work will not improve student performance if the students themselves face problems in their home or neighborhood. Policy makers must look to solve the problems in urban areas - the pervasiveness of gangs, poor family environments and the lure of drugs for example, if they want students to concentrate on their schoolwork and succeed. Thus, school reform in California must accompany a genuine attempt to solve or alleviate the problems in the state's urban areas. Only then will California have an educational system we can all be proud of.

Works Cited

Ballotpedia. "California Proposition 38 (2000)." Ballotpedia.org. 15 May 2010 http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_38_%282000%29.

Council for American Private Education. "Facts and Studies." Capenet.org. 15 May 2010 http://www.capenet.org/facts.html#academic.

Ed-Data. "A Guide to California's School Finance System." February 2007. ed-data.k12.ca.us. 15 May 2010 http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/articles/article.asp?title=Guide%20to%20California%20School%20Finance%20System.

Haycock, Kati and Eric Hanushek. "An Effective Teacher in Every Classroom." Summer 2010. EducationNext.org. 15 May 2010 http://educationnext.org/an-effective-teacher-in-every-classroom/.

Jacobs, Joanne. "Getting good teachers to inner-city schools." 22 April 2010. JoanneJacobs.com. 15 May 2010 http://www.joannejacobs.com/2010/04/getting-good-teachers-to-inner-city-schools.

KIPP San Francisco Bay Area. "Our Approach." kippbayarea.org. 15 May 2010 http://www.kippbayarea.org/schools/sfbay/approach.

Llanos, Connie. "State: Majority of LAUSD schools among state's lowest performing campuses." 13 May 2010. ContraCostaTimes.com. 15 May 2010 http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_15078861.

National Center for Educational Statistics. "Grade 4, Mathematics, 2009." 2009. NCES.gov. 15 May 2010 http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/statecomparisontable.aspx?sbj=MAT&gr=4&yr=2009&sample=R3&jur=CA&st=MN.

National Center for Educational Statistics. "4th Grade Reading." 2009. NCES.gov. 15 May 2010 http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/statecomparisontable.aspx?sbj=RED&gr=4&yr=2009&sample=R3&jur=CA&st=MN.

National Education Association. "Charter Schools." nea.org. 15 May 2010 http://www.nea.org/home/16332.htm.

National Education Association. "The Case Against Vouchers." nea.org. 15 May 2010 http://www.nea.org/home/19133.htm.

Noguchi, Sharon. "California misses out on Race To The Top funding for schools." 4 March 2010. MercuryNews.com. 2010 May 15 http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14513439.

Ramus, Rich. "Ditch Days - Tactics that may get the truant (and parent) back to school." April 2007. InlandEmpireFamily.com. 15 May 2010 http://www.inlandempirefamily.com/t-Education_Ditch_Days_0407.aspx.

San Francisco Chronicle. "Vouchers: A False Promise / Vote No on Prop. 38." 1 October 2000. SFGate.com. 15 May 2010 http://articles.sfgate.com/2000-10-01/opinion/17663193_1_voucher-schools-private-schools-alternative-schools.

Stanford University - CREDO. "Multiple Choice - Charter School Performance in 16 States." 2009. Credo.stanford.edu. 15 May 2010 http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_EXECUTIVE%20SUMMARY.pdf.

Tucker, Jill. "Richmond fights truancy with daytime curfew." 11 April 2010. SfGate.com. 15 May 2010 http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-11/news/20844583_1_daytime-curfew-school-day-magnus/2.

Washington Scholarship Fund. 15 May 2010 http://www.washingtonscholarshipfund.org/.
 
3,234 words, 13 pages
 


 
home | essay writing tutorial | free essay samples | essay writing FAQ | essay writing resources | share your essay | about us

Copyright © EssaybyExample.com. All rights reserved.