By Rev. Bryan Hudson, a pastor, author, publisher, and founder of the Urban Education Journal, a new magazine serving urban schools and educators. Rev. Hudson’s ministry operates a Christian preschool/kindergarten as well as a media arts training program for urban youth.
Looking back over history, we recognize eras in which a relatively few people took an intense interest in some area of art or culture, and their interest and expertise created a spark that grew into a raging fire that heralded renewal. The renewal of interest in fine art from A.D. 1300 to 1600 we called the “Renaissance.” The renewal of interest in faith in God in Wales and the United States in the early twentieth century we called “revival.”
The season of renaissance in education in urban centers is upon us. While it remains to be seen how history will regard this era, those who live in this exciting time should consider it an “urban education renaissance and revival.”
. . . those who live in this exciting time should consider it an “urban education renaissance and revival.”
This urban education renaissance began in the 1980s with parents retaking responsibility for the educational development of their children. It continued in the 1990s with powerful messages being sent to our elected leaders and to non-elected administrators and unions, outlining expectations for our children and their educators. If we are successful, this era will be remembered for having fostered quality urban schools—public and private—that are responsive to educational needs, are no longer hostile toward religion, and are capable of producing world-changing men and women for the 21st century.
Voting with Their Children’s Feet
More than 20 percent of urban school teachers and administrators in Indianapolis send their children to private schools (from Greater Education Opportunities Foundation, Indianapolis, Indiana). Why is this? Why don’t they have enough confidence in the system that employs them to educate their own children in it? Their reluctance to send their children to certain public schools is an indictment of the system!
In 1999 I joined a small group of pastors who sat in on a statewide gathering of public school principals and administrators. The conference had been called by our governor, who sought to institute all-day kindergarten,with state funding, for all children except those who attended faith-based schools. Earlier the same day, several pastors and Christian preschool/school representatives went to the state House of Representatives to protest this unjust proposal and demand a revision to include all kindergartners.
During the session we attended, each speaker highlighted his concern for at-risk children and explored new methods for teaching them. During the question-and-answer session, one of the pastors questioned the wisdom of excluding children who attended private urban schools. Surprisingly, his remarks brought a firestorm of criticism against the pastors and our schools.
Five Factors for Change
After the onslaught, I looked around the room of some 500 people (among whom I saw no more than 10 Black administrators) and began to form the following five conclusions:
- Much of the present educational establishment is not committed to the success of urban children. If they were, they would applaud efforts by all educational institutions to educate urban children. They seek only to maintain control of the minds and the money.
Look at the facts: In 1998, an estimated $300 billion was spent on public education in the United States to serve 47 million children (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics for School Year 1996–97). Public schools employ six million people with fewer than half of them being teachers. The public education system is a monopolistic industry that is flush with cash, low on results in urban centers, and lacking any incentive to change. As a monopoly, the system is unresponsive to parents and the community.
- The present one-size-fits-all big-city educational establishment does not have the capacity to nurture have the right to choose the school that is best for their children—a choice afforded to people of financial means.
- Minorities have virtually no say in the public educational monopoly. Near complete control of the education of minority children resides outside their parents’ influence.
- I can see no way that entrenched “anti–school choice” politicians will effect any substantial change by elevating the educational opportunities and creating positive self-images for Black children.
- These folks, by and large, cannot help us. We must help ourselves!
With the loss of neighborhood schools, parental control of schools, and economic power came the loss of African American educators. The public educational system in urban centers, which is dominated by unions and partisan politics, has “evolved” (to use their prized concept) into an institutionalized monolith that is unresponsive to parents and to the spiritual needs of children.
Urban People Demand Greater Options
People should have the option of establishing alternative schools in urban centers. Many big-city school boards are unwilling to release any control of schools to parents and community leaders. Most big cities are a collection of distinct communities that are often larger than many rural towns. A study conducted by the Blackburn Group in 2000, which surveyed African Americans in Indianapolis on a range of topics, revealed that an astonishing 76 percent of the Black parents surveyed indicated that they would favor a tax-funded voucher program if it permitted them to choose their children’s school (The Blackburn Group, The State of Black Indianapolis). Clearly, urban parents want the empowerment to select the school that will best serve their children. Why would anyone think otherwise? Parents are more committed to their children’s success than to propping up failing public schools or to maintaining loyalty to an educational system that forces a one-size-fits-all solution on them. Personal financial resources should not be the only determining factor in school choice.
Politicians should recognize that if a significant number of people who make up the public are dissatisfied with the present public educational system, the system must change to accommodate the wishes of the taxpayers. Government has a duty to respond to taxpayers’ demands.
Tax-funded scholarships (vouchers) that parents can use for the education of their children are no different, in principle, from tax-funded grants for students to attend the university of their choice, whether secular, Christian, Catholic, or otherwise. No one can argue that our society has not benefited from assisting people in attaining higher education. Whatever raises academic standards should be applauded.
What is rarely heard in the voucher debate is any indication that these new urban schools are incapable of teaching children at a competent academic level. Evidence from school choice programs in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Cleveland, Ohio, has shown that schools spawned through the availability of public funding have exceeded expectations. Opponents argue that these new urban private schools will attract only the best and brightest students while leaving the regular public schools with the most troubled and lowest performing students. The evidence has shown that the demographics for the new urban schools are the same as for the public schools. One major difference is in the attitudes of faculty, who are not complacent since they know their schools’ existence depends on their students’ performance. Unlike public schools, private schools that do not perform do not continue to exist. Many students who have performed poorly in public schools have greatly improved in the smaller, more focused urban private schools. The most important result is the resurgence of parental involvement in these mostly neighborhood schools. These are facts that school choice opponents hardly acknowledge.
Many students who have performed poorly in public schools have greatly improved in the smaller, more focused urban private schools.
I have listened to urban public school educators express their concerns about the present public education system. Many of these dedicated teachers are deeply concerned with the development of young students. As true professionals, they have as their primary concern what is best for the children, not what will perpetuate an entrenched system. Many of these educators would be very happy to teach in charter or public-oriented private schools. They know the value of the discipline, moral values, and academic excellence that are required for success.
The current education renaissance will bring many changes, including the emergence of child-centered schools. We may also see a fundamental change in the public education system as many educators begin to follow their hearts rather than unions or larger paychecks.
The Meantime Volume 2 Number 1