By Mark
I'm presently working with my sophomores to examine news and web articles for the rhetorical triangle of ethos, pathos and logos. In doing so, they've become fantastic critical readers by asking these three questions: What is this article assuming about its audience? What questions is this article not answering? and What is being left unsaid?
That latter two questions came to mind when I was emailed a New York Times article detailing the potential closure of four "failing" schools in the NYC school system under Mayor Bloomberg. The gist was this: four schools had failed to meet growth expectations over the last few years, and therefore the future employment of teachers and administrators was in jeopardy and students were likely to soon be relocated.
The question that seemed to be unanswered to me: How exactly will closing schools solve the problem?
Let's think about the logic of that…
What really is the problem that the district is trying to solve? Is it that the actual building itself, the physical infrastructure, is the problem? Is it that the teachers are the problem? Poor administrative leadership?
In my mind, closing a school only reshuffles the problems into new contexts and doesn't actually solve the problem. One of the schools slated to be closed is a high school. Those kids were apparently not learning at the rate the city and district expected. So, by forcing the kids to go to a different school, how will that solve the problem? If the reality is that those other schools have some magical formula which results in better student achievement, why is that magical formula not brought into the school rather than having the students brought out of the school? If the problem is the teaching, why not just retrain or replace the teachers?
This is all very confusing, very illogical to me. If a school is dysfunctional, closing it does not provide more and greater learning opportunities for students. What is the logic, what is the plan, behind this shuffle? Or, is this just an emotional reaction: the schools are failing, make them go away and the failure likewise will go away.
I think the article, and the policymakers, are assuming that that these questions will not be asked. My guess is that they don't have a clear, concrete answer. As for the last question I tell my sophomores to ask: What is being left unsaid?
To me, that is the elephant in the room. The schools slated to be closed are in among the lowest socioeconomic regions of the district. There is a connection between financial and family stability and the potential for self-actualization (learning). Will closing a school somehow change the societal forces which are inhibiting the success of these kids? Nope. Am I blaming the kids and their families for their lack of success? No–but I do think that the district's response is ignoring the root of the problem.
Perhaps their logic is this: if we ignore the elephant long enough, it will just dissolve away.
I’m here from Clix’s Carnival, and I’m totally coming back. I just finished Aristotle’s appeals with my juniors and seniors, and I’m finding that they, too, are getting better at analyzing argument because of their familiarity with the concepts. They’re not QUITE there yet (and I have a terrible time finding examples of GOOD rhetorical argument to use as examples – I keep going back to MLK’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail) but they’re getting closer!
Thanks Bob, I had no idea about “closing” a school just to open a “new” school to reset the accountability clock. Interesting. I guess its not just pushy parents who know how to work the system…
One use of closing a public school allows, renaming (creating a new school in the same building), shuffling educators again, and resetting the clock to demonstrate eligibility for extra funds to increase student academic performance. Yes, that’s a real reason used by at least one public school district. It’s paid off handsomely for the school administrators, made not much difference for the students. I expect that the NY administrators know of this tactic.
It’s no coincidence that dysfunctional schools are almost always in dysfunctional communities with more than their share of dysfunctional families. Every school wants to be the pride of its community, but all too often it ends up being the mirror of its community. If we want good schools in every community then we need to work first on those communities. It’s the long, hard way to fix the problem. The short, easy way is to set up charter schools here and there and pretend that they represent the communities in which they’re located. But they don’t; they’re an unsustainable answer to a problem that, more than anything else, needs a sustainable solution.