Competition, self-segregation and the schools: A hybrid idea

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In response to Star Tribune columnist Evan Ramstad’s “Choosing to self-segregate in schools” (Aug. 11), let me suggest a hybrid model for public education that offers the best of both worlds: competitive schools for families that want their children to “get ahead” (that should be everyone), and community schools for families that want their children to get along well with their neighbors and be good members of the community (that should also be everyone).

Competition is good for individuals and institutions alike. How does this work on the battlefield that public schools find themselves on? Competition within and among public school districts via open enrollment results in certain schools with higher reputations that rise to the top. And competition between public and private schools helps keep all educators on their toes.

But competition means we have winners and losers, and we should have reservations about what this means. If all the children from good and caring families transfer to schools with the strongest reputation, are we not left with all the children from the less able or less engaged families in the bad schools in weaker districts? We then end up with an awful lot of kids who, through no fault of their own, will be stuck in poor facilities that lack resources with overworked and sometimes burnt-out teachers. This seems like a surefire way to set them up for failure later in life.

On the other end of the spectrum, as stronger schools become ever more competitive, the more elite the school, the more insulated their students become from the rest of the world. What colors their perception of the world around them?

Perhaps it’s time to add an entirely new layer to public education — the community school.

Attendance should be mandatory for children aged pre-K-to-12 from all families who live within the geographic confines of the CS. Community schools should be kept small, perhaps going back to the one-room schoolhouse model. There would be a humanitarian focus on nurturing, with older kids teaching younger kids, and on caregiving responsibilities, where kids with greater mental and physical abilities care for those with less. (According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1 in 6 children aged 3 through 17 has one or more developmental disabilities, but at CS, there will be no special ed. It will all be special ed.)

With these small, geographically confined CS, we’d still have some schools that are mostly segregated — by economic status and by race or nationality. This will strictly be a function of the neighborhood where one lives. But these schools would not be segregated by gender (all boys and girls will attend), nor by religion or political persuasion (students at parochial schools and home-schooled children must also attend CS). And perhaps most important, these schools would not be segregated by the level of parental commitment and involvement. Every family in the neighborhood will have a stake in the game.

CS would supplement our current system of competitive schools. While several options could be considered for the terms of CS, my preference would be one day a week. Perhaps every Monday? I’ll let the professional educators sort that out. What we would need to insist on, though, is a schedule that is set statewide so that the public and private schools (the competitive layer of education) can plan accordingly.

We are not eliminating the current competitive system in elementary and secondary schools. We are complementing it with a new, cooperative layer. Segregated schools or not, the outcome we are driving for is children who grow up to be solid citizens. Good neighbors. Compassionate and inclusive individuals. Socially competent humans who contribute to the economy and the community. And not the least, people who enjoy life and care about one another.