Respect my Choice as a Parent

By AIESHA BETTY

The dream of parents is to give their children the opportunity for a life that is better than the one they had. Life opportunities start with getting a good education that increases a child’s knowledge and skills. In a troubled city like Paterson, however, getting that “good” education is problematic and well documented.

As a practical matter for many parents like me, I can’t move away from the educational problems in Paterson. I cannot transport my family to a tree lined suburb and enroll my daughter in a top school district that will give her the attention required to develop the skills that lead to better job choices and financial comfort. I am cut off geographically and economically from the better performing suburban schools, but thanks to changes in education policy over the past two decades, I can, exercise the choice to have my daughter enter a charter school.

I have embraced that choice because I want to give my child every advantage I can. I want her to have the teacher attention and safety that her charter school offers. Yet, I find that because I exercised my right to choose, I have been drafted into a political battle not of my choosing. On one side are charter school operators. On the other side are educators and school administrators whose careers are tied to the existing, failing urban public school systems.

While the two sides are firing shots over the skirmish line, parents like me are caught in an educational no man’s land. We are the collateral damage of the urban education wars and I’m tired of it.

The most frustrating part of this war is the false narrative that the charter school opponents have established. Their story line is that charter schools are depriving school districts of badly needed money; that not all children will be served equally if charter schools thrive and they excuse their failures because the socio-economic conditions of Paterson and other cities make education improvement nearly impossible.

I reject all of these arguments.

Districts like Paterson, Newark and Camden are awash in money; receiving billions of dollars in state education aid and spending more than $20,000 per pupil. Most of that money seems to be eaten up by a well paid bureaucracy that year

after year fails to meet its primary objective — improving educational outcomes for students who are being swallowed up by a system of socialized mediocrity.

Socio-economic conditions do play a factor in student outcomes, but I am not going to sit by and wait for Paterson to miraculously transform itself into Hoboken. I will not write off my child’s life and thousands like her waiting for a Paterson economic renaissance that I know is not coming any time soon. Those who suggest I do so to preserve the good paying jobs in the city’s public school system are nauseatingly selfish. Children from economically disadvantaged homes can and do learn at a high level; I see it every day in the charter school my daughter attends.

Charter opponents who operate on the socialist premise that we should adopt policies and institution that help either everyone or no one are being cavalier and cruel. They are willing to sink the lives of thousands of children each year to ensure that their failing monopoly on education endures.

What disturbs me the most about the critics of charter schools is that most of them don’t live in cities like Paterson. They have the opportunity to send their children to safe, high performing schools in the suburbs. I guarantee if these critics lived in Paterson, they would not subject their children to the violence and mediocrity of our city schools. Like me they would seek educational alternatives for the very same reason that thousands of parents like me are doing — because we want to give our sons and daughters a chance at succeeding at life.

I learned long ago that life is not fair. But the fundamental unfairness of life is what fuels my primary objective — giving my daughter a path out of Paterson. I cannot throw my hands up and give in to life’s unfairness; I can fight it, and I am by embracing the school choice option offered to me.

We teach our children about life choices. Bad choices yield bad results, good choice yield better results. I choose not to succumb to the outdated urban education bureaucracy because I want my children to have the opportunities I didn’t have. I wish that political leaders and union heads would respect my choice to do what is best for my children.

Aisha Betty has been a Paterson resident for 37 years and works as a Verizon Fios consultant. She is a volunteer Board of Trustee Member of the John P Holland Charter School in Paterson.

(Visited 216 times, 1 visits today)
  • Bertin Lefkovic

    As a parent of children attending a public charter school, I most certainly see the benefits offered by charter schools, but any charter school proponent who ignores the strain the the current charter school funding formula places on both public charter schools and traditional public schools does a disservice to both and to public education as a whole. There are no public schools anywhere that are awash in money. Even the best schools desperately need more money to continue to operate at a high level and struggling schools need it even moreso.

    Bureaucratic largesse is most certainly a problem, as is waste, fraud, and abuse. Billions of dollars could be saved and/or repurposed by consolidating our state’s 600+ public school districts into 21 county school districts. There is most certainly no need for 600+ superintentendents, assistant superintendents, business managers, assistant business managers, and their hyperredundant support staffs. Spending more on oversight will save money in the long run.

    However, even if we do all of this, the charter school funding formula must still be changed so that public charter schools and traditional public schools can work cooperatively going forward rather than competitively. Instead of taking 90% of a traditional public school’s per-pupil funding, charter schools should get 50%. To supplement this funding, both public charter schools and traditional public schools should be allowed to receive private contributions that are tax-creditable rather than tax-refundable.

    Charter schools were originally conceived to be laboratories for innovation rather than vehicles utilized primarily to siphon funds away from already struggling public schools. By putting a greater emphasis on philanthropic support, the charter schools that are truly exceptional and innovative will not only survive, but thrive, while those that aren’t will most certainly fail as they should.

    There should also be more incentives placed on traditional public schools to participate in the Inter-District School Choice Program. Many suburban districts that complain about the loss of funds to charter schools in their area choose to ignore the simple fact that they could replace these lost funds by accepting more students from urban schools. Complaints that the urban students that they accept will cost more to educate than the suburban students that they lose to charters is racist and unacceptable.

    The simple fact of the matter is that the problems facing public education are very complex and difficult to resolve and they only become moreso if we solely focus on our own best interests and ignore the greater good, which is what public education is supposed to be.

News From Around the Web

Podcasts