Right wing pundits say affirmative action does not work. They say it cannot work. They say the solution is to allow for non Whites in cities to have school choice. They should be free to go to charter schools. City kids and their parents agree school choice can work. They choose to go to public schools, NOT charter schools, in wealthy suburbs outside the city. Let poor kids go where the money is and some of that wealth may fall into their hands.
NO, NO, NO, the Right says. They don’t want city kids to be able to choose to go to wealthy schools in the suburbs. God forbid, not that.
The biggest difference between bad schools in cities and good schools in the suburbs is money. The facilities in a wealthy suburban high school are fantastic compared to what's in the city. Some high schools in wealthy Midwest suburbs have facilities for the football team that rival pro football -- carpeted locker room floors, semi private showers with plenty of hot water, a steam room, and a sauna. Also, someone to launder the football uniforms at least once a week, in some cases, every day and a training table with healthy (and unhealthy) snacks for after practice -- apples and oranges and tuna sandwiches and Gatorade — twinkies and ding dongs. The boys are treated like kings.
In contrast, a lot of city junior highs and high schools don't have working water fountains. They never have hot water in the showers. Some have NO showers at all. To prevent drug dealing and to keep weapons away, most of the gym lockers cannot be locked. The sports teams clean up at colleges or YMCA's that let them do so. The boys practice in their own "work out" clothes from home, not in uniforms. The boys are treated like serfs -- or slaves.
The Right posits that students able to choose a "for profit" charter school where they live will have the same opportunities as students in those public schools in wealthy suburbs. That's FALSE. It is NOT true. The choice of a charter school allows the boys to feel like serfs in a different location, not to get a better education. "For profit" charter schools produce profits for the managers and owners of the schools and destroy public education unions. Most of them most of the time diminish the future opportunities of the students who go to the school, unlike the wealthy public high schools in the suburbs.
NO, NO, NO, the Right says. They don’t want city kids to be able to choose to go to wealthy schools in the suburbs. God forbid, not that.
The biggest difference between bad schools in cities and good schools in the suburbs is money. The facilities in a wealthy suburban high school are fantastic compared to what's in the city. Some high schools in wealthy Midwest suburbs have facilities for the football team that rival pro football -- carpeted locker room floors, semi private showers with plenty of hot water, a steam room, and a sauna. Also, someone to launder the football uniforms at least once a week, in some cases, every day and a training table with healthy (and unhealthy) snacks for after practice -- apples and oranges and tuna sandwiches and Gatorade — twinkies and ding dongs. The boys are treated like kings.
In contrast, a lot of city junior highs and high schools don't have working water fountains. They never have hot water in the showers. Some have NO showers at all. To prevent drug dealing and to keep weapons away, most of the gym lockers cannot be locked. The sports teams clean up at colleges or YMCA's that let them do so. The boys practice in their own "work out" clothes from home, not in uniforms. The boys are treated like serfs -- or slaves.
The Right posits that students able to choose a "for profit" charter school where they live will have the same opportunities as students in those public schools in wealthy suburbs. That's FALSE. It is NOT true. The choice of a charter school allows the boys to feel like serfs in a different location, not to get a better education. "For profit" charter schools produce profits for the managers and owners of the schools and destroy public education unions. Most of them most of the time diminish the future opportunities of the students who go to the school, unlike the wealthy public high schools in the suburbs.