After our visits to the two schools, both in what I would classify as affluent neighbourhoods, I had a few concerns about the concept of Universal Education. It was particularly interesting to hear the priincipal at Arbutus Middle School give us information about how well-renowned the school is, and how they are "giving the private schools' a run for their money". As far as I understand it, the concept of universal education here in Canada is that the public school system is here to serve the public - the poor, rich, and in between. I was really quite concerned to learn that there are public high schools here that hold interview/application processes for prospective students - how does this fit into the idea of free, universal education? If schools are screening students based on their socioeconomic status, or simply their academic status, where does that leave those rejected students?
I also thought it interesting the whole concept of the "family of schools" that Victoria has implemented - while it has a wholesome, feel-good ring to it, however, as someone tried to point out during our visit to the school, what happens to students who move into a catchment area in the middle of a school year only to be told there's no room for them? I think this has huge implications for people who cannot afford to drive their kids to school, or even pay for their bus fare, never mind the idea that I think the whole idea of catchment areas for schools had a really important basis.
what does everyone else think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree with Rachel. I think that if someone moves into the catchment area they should be admitted into that school. Sometimes it is just not feasible for a child to go to a school that is not near their home. Also, the travel time could be a hinderance to their education. I think that perhaps there could be some sort of process where there could be space found for that student in certain circumstances whether the school is technically full or not.
I thought the principal of Arbutus said that if a student lives or moves into the catchment area they are invited to come to Arbutus, but they are also allowed to make the choice to go to any other public or private school.
When she said that sometimes the schools in one family get too full I thought she was talking about students from other catchment areas who want to come to Arbutus. She said that students who are in other catchment areas may not be able to be accomodated because the school might be too full.
I think that this nullifies the point that some parents may not be able to afford to send their students to a school that is farther away from home because any neighbourhood that those parents live in will be in a catchment area for a nearby school. The parents and students are able to make the choice to send the student to another school if it is economically feasible for them.
Another thing to mention is something that we talked about in our Philosophy class: all schools are not created equally. Parents from neighbourhoods that are richer are probably going to have higher standards for their children's education than parents who are from less wealthy parts of town. Teachers and schools need to fulfill the expectations of parents and the community.
"Universal education" to me means that everyone has the opportunity to get an education, to learn the basics. Not that everyone will have the opportunity to an EQUAL education. As long as the curriculum standards are met in each school, students have the opportunity to learn the basics.
If some schools decide to go above and beyond the curriculum, I think that is their perogative. That school will provide their students with a better education than another school may be capable of providing. Thus, the education that students may receive in one school will be UNEQUAL to the education that they may receive at another school, and a big factor in deciding which schools will provide more experiences to schools is money.
Firstly, I understood the principal to mean that even if students live in the catchment area, if the school is full then parents must register their child with another school. So I believe the point remains valid. As Rachel said this may pose potential problems for lower socioeconomic status families who may not have the means to send their children to a school outside their catchment.
Secondly, yes not all schools are created equally, and I can certainly recognize why parents want to send their children to wealthier schools. With more money schools can provide students with more resources, more opportunities, etc. As teachers, regardless of the school, the children will always come first. We need to focus on how we are going to provide the children in our class with the best learning experiences, doing our job to best mentally, physically, socially and emotionally equip our students for the unequal and unfair world we live in.
I think that this topic is far too broad for a simple blog, but I will respond to Carmen. Saying that parents with more money have higher standards for their children's education is an uninformed opinion. My parents struggled to put food on the table yet wanted nothing better than for their children to be well educated. Education isn't about money, or what resources your school has, it is about enriching your mind. I agree with Rachel that in a public system, it shouldn't be about money, or economic status. Education at the public level should be equal across the board no matter what community a student lives in. Children should not be penalized for the ills of our society.
I will address Chantal's comment by clarifying my original comment.
The point of my original comment was not to say that parents in socio-economically binding situations may not have the educational background to understand the upcoming trends in society, the rationale behind what students are learning.
For example: I went to three elementary schools, two were in socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods, and the third was in a rich neighbourhood. My primary expereinces were the teachers using whatever resources they could get ahold of to teach us the basic curriculum. We did worksheets, and participated in a lot of listening to the teacher.
In my intermediate grades, in the richer school we did a lot more hands on, student centered learning. The reason for this was becuase the parents were involved in the school and insisted that their children participate in the learning.
Richer parents had more time to insist on better educational methods.
While I realize that this is just one case, it seems to be a trend. I work at a Daycare in Cordova Bay and we have parents who sit on the board for our daycare. Those parents who get involved, who have time to get involved are the parents who are richer, and they have their needs fulfilled by spending time on the board.
The point of what I was saying was not that parents who are poorer don't want anything but the best for their children, but that sometimes they are unable to provide the environment for "the best" things to occur.
ALSO, regardless of whether schools and society SHOULD cater to the wealthier populations, it DOES, and it is important to recognize how and why that focus occurs...
Post a Comment