scott

Scott T. Cella EDUC-610 Chapter 1 Reaction Paper  After spending four years of training to enter the education profession and three years of practicing my trade, it is noticeably evident that education has a tremendous amount of sociological issues attached to it. Colleagues consistently debate and educational ‘gurus’ argue on the best way to fix these dilemmas, but the issues presented in the classroom are unsolvable unless theorists observe what is actually taking place in the public schools. As a teacher, my views of these sociological issues come from inside the classroom and my observations of the kids being affected by the hierarchy’s decisions. The first chapter touches upon two important factors which allows for constant controversy and debate in modern education: equity and politics.  It is easy for politicians to claim that everyone is being presented an equal chance to succeed in the public school system, but those who have witnessed the insanity of urban education can attest differently. I have spent three years observing schools in an urban environment and three years working in a suburban school; it does not take research to notice the drastic differenced in quality. We can claim that all students are given an equal chance, but the equity in how we provide that chance ranges based on wealth and location. If the public schools wanted true equality, then a realistic dispersion of resources and opportunity is in order (Nelson, 39-40).  Unfortunately, politics play the biggest role in how the educational system is run. Many scholars have spent their careers educating themselves on how schools should be run, but their voices are phased out due to the overwhelming control given to national and state politicians. Recent laws, such as No Child Left Behind, are mandated by government despite the vast majority of educational experts opposing the statute. Most politicians do not run for office because of their passion of education; however, they need to take a position in order to be elected. Decisions coming from these leaders have deteriorated the public schools and the kids being raised in this current system are the individuals who are being negatively impacted the most (Nelson, 45-48).  Scott T. Cella EDUC-610 Chapter 2 Reaction Paper  In modern education, teachers are beginning to see parents become much more involved in their children’s academic lives. Fathers and mothers are becoming more entitled to approach teachers and administrators now that resources, such as e-mail, allow for instant communication. Instead of students being held accountable, many parents immediately confront the teacher and his/her teaching methods (Paul, 2011). Some experts now believe that parents should be the individuals making all academic decisions; after all, they are the ones raising the upcoming generation. Vouchers provide parents with this opportunity, but most professionals in the academic field do not see the merit in this program.  Vouchers provide only one solution: parents would feel more involved in their child’s education decisions. That is it. Parent satisfaction drives this movement. Proponents of vouchers fail to see the major issues which would stem from this horrendous decision because of their narrow understanding of the educational system. The most immediate impact would be the rise in local taxes to support this program. According to the U.S. Department of Education, currently five million students are enrolled in private schools (2008). These families still pay taxes to their local district, but they pay excess to educate their child elsewhere. If vouchers were to take place, then these families could use those tax dollars towards private school education. Assuming that the tuition is $10,000 a year and the voucher totals $6,000 per year, that forces $4,000 to be paid by the taxpayers per student. In the end, the upper-class gets a break while the middle-class suffers the deficit (Nelson, 64).  Another repercussion of vouchers is the segregation that would occur due to private institutions’ admission policies. Most private schools today are religiously affiliated; therefore, the admission of students would be set to the standards of that religion. Christians would be accepted to Christian school, Muslims to Muslim schools, etc. Instead of celebrating diversity, there would be a lack of diversity in the schools. Also, the wealthy would still attend the high-level schools because they would be the only ones able to afford the tuition. The schools whose entire tuition would be covered by the vouchers would be the poor, urban institutions. Yet again, the main problem would not be solved; in fact, more complex issues of segregation would arise (Nelson, 69-70).  Lastly, providing vouchers would contradict the founding of this country. A rise in parent choice would enable a rise in privatization, forcing a decrease in public education. However, public education is what has made this country great and what will continue to fuel America’s success. Public schools teach democracy, morals, citizenship, and other key components to the American lifestyle. Without a firm foundation for our kids, this country will become a hodgepodge of radicals and narrow-minded groups. A person’s upbringing from kindergarten to twelfth grade helps define that individual’s pathway to success. A carefully monitored program, such as public education, would be much more beneficial than a collective group of private schools each with their own initiative (Nelson, 63-64).  In short, vouchers are not the answer to rejuvenating public education. The notion that parental choice is going to fix the current problems is absolutely invalid and should be abandoned without further consideration. As Dewey said, it will “undermine an educational system that enables... citizens to learn what democratic life means” (Dewey, 1916). 

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Scott T. Cella <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">EDUC-610 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Chapter 3 Reaction Paper <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> In today’s educational society, approximately half of school funding is provided by the state and about 40% is dictated by local property taxes. The movement to centralize these finances would rip these funds from local authorities and allow the state to take charge of over 90% of school funding. America was formed due to a group who desired an escape from an overpowering central government, and mandating this decree would be returning to a similar system which we once successfully departed. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> Proponents of centralizing school funding have admirable intentions; after all, Kozol’s research is quite stunning. They long to create a society of equal chance and consistent funding in an attempt to establish justice for poorer districts. What they fail to see, however, are the negative repercussions which would transpire from a shift of power from local to state government. They would be hindering a capitalistic society, the motivation of hard work, and the worth of property for those who already paid their dues. In an effort to benefit less fortunate kids, they are diminishing established school systems which produce quality students to better our world. It is challenging to accept, but centralized school funds will not prevent the distribution of wealth for the current generation (Nelson, 91-92). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> The notion of centralizing has one main goal: to distribute money evenly to ensure that each student has a fair chance to achieve academically. The idea would be plausible if the research supported it. Unfortunately, there is no adequate data which correlates school materials to academic success. Instead, socioeconomic status explains why poor students struggle with school. They have less opportunities to learn outside of class, less experiences to apply skills, and in most cases, less family support to guide education (Nelson, 85). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> Another justification against centralizing school finances is the unfortunate situation of leaders abusing power. Advocates of equal funding suggest rewarding failing schools and punishing successful schools, but the failing schools are used as a business rather than an educational center. Paraprofessionals (cafeteria workers, security, janitors, etc.) rely on these buildings as a source of income at the expense of the students. Instead of closing failing schools or revitalizing struggling schools with higher standards, the state may keep the school active to support the paraprofessionals. Urban schools have been mismanaged by its leaders who reap the benefits as their students fail (Nelson, 89-90). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> The most important factor related to this argument is the hit that local communities would take if their school funding is striped from them. The general population already has input in educational needs when they elect school board members. Even if a school board approves of an unreasonable request, the public can veto that idea. The current system allows for some local control, but a movement to state centralization would cripple community effort. Parents’ motivation to become involved would deteriorate and the people who support our school would be silenced. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> The theory behind centralization is plausible, but giving more power to the government can be extremely dangerous. It should also be noted that poorer regions have been receiving more support over the past few years and there is no improvement in their standardized scores. Money, in and of itself, does not produce smarter kids. Therefore, the notion of raising taxes to poor money into an ineffective system is both foolish and wasteful. <span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 150%;">