Untitled
Professional Obligations of Teachers and Parental Interests
Educational dilemmas arise between teachers' professional obligations and the interests of parents who act to protect their family's best interests. This often manifests as a conflict between a teacher's duty to objective assessment and a parent's desire for their child to have a competitive edge.
Dr. Heschel, a school leader, enhances teachers' ability to maintain their professional integrity by fostering an environment where pedagogical decisions are insulated from external pressure.
It is critical to initiate discussions with the question: "What do teachers need to enact their professional roles with integrity?" This shifts the focus from simple compliance to moral agency.
Dr. Heschel commits to supporting teachers at Hamaskil, enabling them to uphold professional integrity in their assignments and grading. This includes defending teachers during contentious parent-teacher conferences.
Faculty members are expected to provide sound rationales for grade assignments that correspond with the school's mission, ensuring that grades reflect student learning rather than parental negotiation.
Doris A. Santoro is introduced as an associate professor at Bowdoin College. Her focus is on educators' moral concerns regarding their duties and arguments for educational resistance. She distinguishes between "burnout" (personal exhaustion) and "demoralization" (the inability to access the moral rewards of teaching due to institutional constraints).
Chapter Five: Is Pandering Ethical Policy?
Access to Public Elementary Schools
Questions of Justice in School Assignment Systems
The Boston Public Schools (BPS) faced a critical issue regarding the distribution of access to variable quality public elementary schools during reform efforts for the 2014-2015 academic year. Prior to this, BPS used a three-zone model that often required long bus rides for students.
Key questions to consider:
How should access be allocated within a school district?
What constitutes a distributively just school assignment system amidst significant disparities in school quality?
Should the priority be minimizing travel time or maximizing equal access to top-tier schools?
Boston Public Schools' Home-Based Plan
The Home-Based Plan is a new elementary school assignment policy implemented by BPS to replace the large-zone system. It utilizes a "data-driven" approach to create unique baskets for every residence.
Kindergarten (K2) entrants are provided a basket of 10 to 18 schools—this choice is derived from proximity and district regulations.
The basket consists of:
All schools within a mile of the home address.
Citywide elementary schools.
The nearest Early Learning Center.
Schools attended by the child’s siblings (sibling priority).
Each basket must include:
At least two Tier I schools (top of the district).
At least two Tier I or II schools (top ).
At least two Tier I, II, or III schools (above the bottom ).
Option schools, defined as those underchosen likely to have available spaces for applicants.
Each child entering K2 is guaranteed a seat at one school listed in their basket.
Lottery Process
Families must submit a rank-ordered list of school choices by early February and enter a lottery.
A computer algorithm assigns students based on preferences and randomly generated lottery numbers. This is a version of the "Deferred Acceptance Algorithm."
Students currently enrolled in pre-kindergarten (K1) are guaranteed a spot in K2, followed by priority for those with siblings in the same school.
The algorithm does not account for demographic characteristics (e.g., race, gender, income), a point of contention for those seeking intentional desegregation.
Seats are filled during the first lottery round, and later rounds feature a “parent compacting” option for families to group together for underchosen schools to build community and improve school perception.
Equality of Opportunity Principles
An essential principle in BPS's Home-Based Plan is ensuring children have equal opportunities for quality education.
Measures taken to promote equality of opportunity include:
Limiting the correlation between residence and school quality access.
Ensuring each family receives at least four high-quality schools (Tiers I and II) in their lottery basket, regardless of where they live.
Restricting the number of schools to ten to fourteen to aid families in making informed decisions, preventing "choice overload."
Limitations of the Home-Based Plan
While the plan tries to equalize access, it does offer only a minimum standard of options rather than a maximum limit, which preserves the advantage of living in high-resource areas.
High-quality schools are predominantly located in wealthier neighborhoods, resulting in unequal access for families less than a mile away from these schools.
The disparities in access are underscored through an analysis of school choices among families:
Example Problem: Celia (from West Roxbury) and John (from Dorchester) demonstrate differences in access to high-quality schools and seat availability in their respective lottery baskets.
Celia's family has access to 13 schools, including 6 of high quality, while John's family has access to only 5 high-quality schools.
Competition for School Seats
Competition for school seats varies significantly based on neighborhood demographics and population density.
West Roxbury vs. Dorchester illustrates discrepancies:
West Roxbury’s density is 700 children/ while Dorchester has 2,135/, causing disparities in seat competition: John faces triple the competition as Celia per available seat.
Potential Solutions for Equity
Addressing inequities could involve modifying the home basket configurations or rebalancing lottery weights based on socioeconomic backgrounds.
Examples of potential improvements include:
Implementing weighted priority in the lottery for students from lower-performing neighborhoods (socio-economic status weights).
Systems like “controlled choice” in other districts to ensure equitable distribution among schools based on student needs rather than just geography.
Attracting Middle-Income Families and Increasing School Quality
The challenge remains to make policies that mitigate the flight of middle-class families from Boston Public Schools without disadvantaging poorer families.
Although giving families unequal opportunities could be seen as unjust, some argue it serves to increase overall school quality by encouraging high-quality schools to remain operational by retaining a diverse tax and advocacy base.
Necessary inducements for families include:
The design of school choice processes tailored to alleviate preemptive exits to private or suburban schools while ensuring racial and economic integration.
Ethical Considerations of Pandering
The concept of 'pandering' raises ethical questions about fairness and the distribution of educational opportunities to privileged families.
Key considerations include:
Is it just to give privileged families better chances (to prevent them from leaving the system) while denying underprivileged children equal access?
Should school policies be oriented towards maximizing overall quality (utilitarianism) despite unequal opportunity (egalitarianism)?
The dilemma: prioritized equal opportunity vs. driving overall system quality upwards.
Can Pandering Promote Equality of Opportunity?
Reevaluation of Equal Opportunity
The idea of equal opportunity for high-quality schools is worth reconsidering; fundamental goods such as flourishing, talent development, and occupational success should take precedence over school quality alone.
The debate stems from whether equalizing access to high-quality schools aligns with deeper principles of justice or if it is merely a proxy for more complex outcomes.
While pandering to privileged families could advance equality concerning fundamental goods (by sustaining a robust public school system for all), policymakers must consider moral implications against multifaceted views of justice.
Conversation Topics by Section
Professional Integrity (Page 1):
Discussion: How should a teacher handle a situation where a student's grade is technically a "B" but the parent argues it will prevent a Ivy League admission?
Topic: The distinction between "giving in" to parents and "collaborating" with them.
The BPS Assignment Model (Page 2):
Discussion: Is geographic proximity a fundamental right in public education, or should access be entirely decoupled from where one lives?
Topic: The ethics of using "random lotteries" to decide a child's educational future.
The Ethics of Pandering (Page 3):
Discussion: If the only way to keep middle-class families in a city's public school system is by giving them a slight advantage in school choice, is that a price worth paying for the long-term health of the district?
Topic: Can an "unjust" process (unequal access) produce a "just" result (systemic preservation)?