I wondered what was up when the neighbor kids came by doing a government school fund raiser but couldn’t explain what the money was for. In this funny NYTimes op-ed Karen Karbo makes it all clear:
…in these belt-tightening times, selling stuff doesn’t just raise money for new uniforms for the marching band — it also keeps the computer lab up and running and the heat on in the winter. To blow off the fund-raiser is tantamount to being anti-education.
Karbo argues that the fix for this pathetic situation is, you guessed it, more government:
Rather than directing our energy toward lobbying local and federal governments to cure the growing and chronic problem of inadequate school budgets, we’re busy applying Band-Aids in the form of selling magazines and junk food. As long as we race around headless chicken-style making up each year’s shortfall, budgets will continue to shrink and more students will find themselves having no idea why they’re being sent door to door, or cubicle to cubicle, like a character out of Dickens.
I don’t know about the rest of the country but here in St. Louis I know that the worst of the government schools (the inner city schools) spend two to three times per student what private and religious schools do. (The ratio of something like 10 administrators to 1 in the comparably sized parochial system may have something to with this). I’m no prophet but I’m going to guess that if Karbo and friends succeed in their lobbying efforts so that government schools are spending four to five times per student they will still need to do fundraisers. I suggest that Ms. Karbo look a bit deeper into the problem.
2 Responses
Many public schools have privately support sectors, just as band and sports and chess clubs etc. These private niches within the socialist structure actually work rather well, as parents feel a stake in the outcome and there is some attention to cost control and the boosters themselves excercis de facto control over leadership. Now, if we could just expand this model to the whole school!
A (very slight) criticism: somewhere in the body of this piece is a reference to a “normal school,” i.e., a teacher-training institution.
It is not a “normal” school but rather, a “Normal” school, that is, a type of institution originally proposed by–if you hadn’t guessed it–
a guy whose last name was Normal. These schools were called by that name in the same way as some later early-learning schools came to be called “Montessori” schools.