Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > May > 20 > Entry
Editorial: Will Dayton parents accept fewer school choices?
For a decade, Dayton has been known as a school choice mecca.
So Tuesday’s announcement that the school district plans to push really hard to get elementary school students to attend their neighborhood schools in 2011 raises an interesting question:
Will a city conditioned to expect widespread school choice accept the notion that children should stay in their neighborhood?
From the advent of charter schools in the late 1990s, Dayton quickly emerged as a national leader in the percentage of kids who attended them, mostly because of the dissatisfaction with the school district.
Choice advocates here helped pioneer private-school scholarships before that, and Dayton became a heavy user of state vouchers that gave public money for kids to attend private schools for the past five years.
But the history extends even further. Following Dayton’s court-ordered integration in the mid-1970s, the district tried magnet schools, a lottery-style school assignment system, and other open-enrollment programs.
Dayton superintendent-in-waiting Lori Ward believes those practices did more harm than good, even as they were a way to make busing for integration more accepted. Establishing attendance zones around neighborhood schools, she believes, will strengthen ties between school and home and offer better access to after-school programs for kids. (It will also save transportation costs, but Ms. Ward said that is not a primary goal.)
“Choice is a major inhibitor of strong relationships between schools and families,” she said.
But the conversion could be tricky. Parents choose schools for all sorts of reasons. Will they accept being told where their kids will attend? (Three schools — the district’s Montesorri school and the all-boys and all-girls schools — will still draw from across the district.)
“This might have worked really well in 1985, but I’m not sure about 2010,” said Terry Ryan, the Dayton-based vice president of the pro-charter Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. “Folks have grown used to choice, and they like it.”
For an example of what Ms. Ward has in mind, look at Ruskin Elementary School. Partnering with the University of Dayton and East End Community Services, Ruskin offers programs after school and has attracted 80 percent of its enrollment from the neighborhood.
The integration of Ruskin into the fabric of the Twin Towers community has been a plus for the kids, their families and the neighborhood.
Four other Dayton schools have, or will have, similar designs. Ms. Ward would like to build on that approach.
How the districtwide plan is crafted will be key. Ms. Ward said she wants to propose a new student-assignment system by December for adoption by the school board next January. She said she announced the effort early in hope of attracting lots of input from parents.
A series of feedback meetings are in the works. Ms. Ward is open to ideas for making the change gradually, allowing exceptions that could be phased out over time.
That’s a good approach. School leaders need time to gauge the community’s wants and needs. The board must demonstrate that its final decision will truly benefit kids, not trap them in places their families don’t want to be.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: City of Dayton, Editorials, Education, Scott Elliott
Comments
By Max
May 20, 2010 10:11 AM | Link to this
The grand experiment of magnet schools is a failure for many reasons none of which has to do with community wants and needs. Most of the failure is jointly shared by DPS and the State; DPS with its dismal graduation rate even WITH the magnet system, and, the State ODE for not even denting the Supreme Court ruling that it ‘decrease the dependence on property value for funding.’ Local control of school boards has a double edged blade; over reliance on what parents want have to match with what the district can afford. To give them a choice when there is no choice is symtomatic the board is dysfunctional in the least and mounting a PR offensive with nothing but rhetoric supporting it at best. Dayton City Government as well as the School Board are paying for the sins of past administrations as they gave tax abatements to companies who are no longer here, and, their budgets as well as long term plans were based upon the trickle down revenue from those businesses. Here is a clear example of why school funding MUST be seperated from market and social trends.
By Max
May 20, 2010 10:13 AM | Link to this
The grand experiment of magnet schools is a failure for many reasons none of which has to do with community wants and needs. Most of the failure is jointly shared by DPS and the State; DPS with its dismal graduation rate even WITH the magnet system, and, the State ODE for not even denting the Supreme Court ruling that it ‘decrease the dependence on property value for funding.’ Local control of school boards has a double edged blade; over reliance on what parents want have to match with what the district can afford. To give them a choice when there is no choice is symtomatic the board is dysfunctional in the least and mounting a PR offensive with nothing but rhetoric supporting it at best. Dayton City Government as well as the School Board are paying for the sins of past administrations as they gave tax abatements to companies who are no longer here, and, their budgets as well as long term plans were based upon the trickle down revenue from those businesses. Here is a clear example of why school funding MUST be seperated from market and social trends.
By Rob
May 20, 2010 12:10 PM | Link to this
I really don’t know enough to provide much comment here. In other districts, you don’t get to choose unless you are picking a private school. If you live next to a school…that’s where you go. Of course, I’m from the Burg and I’m rather happy with my schools.
By Joe Lacey
May 20, 2010 1:16 PM | Link to this
“Will a city conditioned to expect widespread school choice accept the notion that children should stay in their neighborhood?” The answer to this question has been yes for a long time and everyone has known it and banked on it for a long time. In the school board election of 1999 every candidate running said they wanted neighborhood schools. In 2001, Kids First was elected spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on tv ads promising neighborhood schools. All levies since 2002 were sold to the public with the promise of neighborhood schools. This board is simply delivering on years of promises to the community. It’s great to be able to offer choice to parents but it comes at a price. That price comes at the expense of classroom instruction and strong relationships between families and schools. “Parents choose schools for all sorts of reasons.” This is true and its clear that those reasons too often have nothing to do with school quality or performance. Some of our best performing schools are not at capacity while people insist on sending their children to charter schools that the state is in the process of shutting down. Why should our community pay for a system that promotes parents sending their children across town for reasons having nothing to do with quality? Perhaps we should present voters of this community with a levy to raise the millions to pay for the busing that results from choice. Then we could all see what this community thinks of school choice.
By Joe Lacey
May 20, 2010 10:30 PM | Link to this
Scott if you want more specifics about Kids First 2001 campaign there were two tv ads that I can remember. In one, Mike Turner introduces himself and the Kids First candidates and said that they will bring “neighborhood schools with more discipline and more accountability”. In the other there were educational stock photos and photos of the Kids First candidates with a voice over touting the same line, “neighborhood schools with more discipline and more accountability”. I don’t have the figures but I’m pretty sure they spent over a hundred thousand dollars on these ads in a two hundred fifty thousand dollar campaign. I’m pretty sure the same slogan “neighborhood schools….” was on their printed literature.
By David Esrati
May 20, 2010 11:07 PM | Link to this
While this will have little effect on the marginal performing students with minimal parental involvement- it will have a huge impact on the motivated parent- and the way our neighborhoods have evolved. Grandfathering is nice- but, there is much more at stake- read this post: http://www.esrati.com/dayton-neighborhood-schools-finally/4937/ to hear some other ideas. Lori Ward has the right stuff- and the right idea- it will be interesting to see if she can get the buy in. The really important thing to focus on is excellence at every school- we’ve seen some dramatic changes under new principals at Thurgood Marshall, Ruskin, and Belmont is a whole new kind of environment from what I’ve heard. Remember- there are still plenty of Charters to choose from- and this may actually boost their business- unless DPS figures out how to refuse busing to charters outside your zone.
By Max
May 21, 2010 10:40 AM | Link to this
Ward has a healthy view on the effects of busing so the question being asked parents and communities is loaded. DPS cannot afford any choice BUT to go back to community schools. According to State ‘report card’ results of DPS and individual schools, there can be nothing but improvement, financially and academically, because things are as bad as they can be. The ‘choice’ of fewer will probably be whittled down to none. That is at least fiscally responsible and may draw the attention of ODE in a favorable way for a change.
By It's Great in Dayton!!
May 24, 2010 10:24 PM | Link to this
WHY WOULD ANYBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WANT TO LIVE IN DAYTON!!!!——————————- “An armed robbery early Sunday morning, May 23, sent one man to the hospital with a bullet wound to the face and another with a wound to the head from a baseball bat.———————————————- Now Dayton police are looking for four young men seen in the East Dayton neighborhood between Springfield and First streets.—————————————— When police arrived around 1:30 a.m., they found Juan Carlos Cruz-Gomez, 21, on all fours in the front yard of 52 Burlington, bleeding from the face. Hector Trejo-Carilla, 38, told police Gomez had been shot, and he had been beaten in a robbery. Medics said Gomez had been shot in the lip with the bullet traveling along his jawbone, exiting near his left temple. Carilla had a laceration at the crown of his head.——————————————————————————- According to witnesses, the two victims and a third man were in their adjoining front yards, drinking and talking over the fence. Two young men entered the yard, one armed with a baseball bat, the other with a small handgun. One ordered Carilla to hand over his wallet, and struck him with the bat after he tossed his wallet on the ground.————————————————— The second assailant then shot Gomez and took his wallet. They fled on foot with a third man, and a witness saw the three men run from the area and jump into a late-model, silver Chevrolet Impala on Springfield. The vehicle sped from the area.”
By It's Great in Dayton!!
May 27, 2010 7:36 AM | Link to this
There are no good choices here, and the situation will only get worse. Dayton has spiraled downward to the point where most businesses have left, most people with marketable skills have left, and the stewardship of the remaining tax revenues is incompetent. Dayton will continue to implode, and at this point nothing will stop the implosion. The ‘burbs are still nice places to live and work, though. It’s just Dayton that’s tanking.