OPINION . Editor's Letter

School's Out

Violence isn't the sole reason my wife and I won't be sending our kids to public schools.

Published: Mar 14, 2007

Ireceived a lot of interesting reactions to my column last week where I pondered moving to the 'burbs. The bone of contention: my offhand comment that I didn't want my kids attending public school because they might "grow up to snap their algebra teacher's neck."

This was based, of course, on the news story about the Germantown High student who snapped his math teacher's neck.

Anyway, some reactions arrived by mail. One anonymous reader sent me two separate envelopes, each containing a newspaper clipping that suggested a school. ("Why not St. Peter's Episcopal?") I could tell both envelopes were from the same person, because the handwriting was identical. Maybe it was Milton Street.

Some reactions were delivered on the comments section of our Web site. There were some valid points — if I'm going to complain, why don't I do something about it, and advocate for reform?

And one reaction even appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News.

My friend Ronnie Polaneczky, a columnist at the Daily News, read my piece, and was upset about the neck-snapping line. She thought it was an insult to the families of public-school children, and she's sick of knee-jerk reactions like mine. "I'm weary of parents who've never set foot in the city's schools publicly reviling them as they drive the U-Haul across the county line," she wrote in her column two days ago.

And you know what — I can see her point. To a point.

My statement was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Of course I don't think the Philadelphia School District systematically turns its 174,370 students into neck-snapping killers. I was reacting as a horrified parent.

But a freak occurrence like the one at Germantown High doesn't bug me as much as the casual violence that Philadelphia public-school teachers suffer on a regular basis. The shoves. The slaps. The punches.

Just this past Sunday, the Inquirer reported that on an average school day, three or four teachers or administrators are assaulted.

Three or four. Per day.

Is it OK to say this is really, really effed up?

(And Ronnie, do you really want to stick by your claim that 99.9 percent of the kids who attend public schools "would no sooner break a teacher's neck" than my kids? Somebody's doing the hitting.)

I attended Catholic schools from first grade through senior year. If I would have raised a hand to a teacher — hell, even thought about raising a hand to a teacher — I would have been a grease spot on the floor. No questions asked.

But Ronnie is right: Violence isn't the sole reason my wife and I won't be sending our kids to public schools.

It's because ... and ooh, I can almost feel the hate mail being written right now ... I want something better for our kids.

Maybe that's elitist, but it's the truth.

And probably the truth for most of the families who lit out for the 'burbs.

Even Ronnie admits that the public-school system is underfunded and overcrowded. It's also a gamble what kind of school you end up with. "Their climates differ according to neighborhood, principal, teachers, student, demographics and parental involvement," Ronnie writes. Any reader of the news knows the school district is troubled without having to set foot in a school.

So why not get involved and change things, as one reader suggested?

This, above all other reactions, gave me the greatest pause.

The odds are daunting. It reminds me of the few Spartans squaring off against the hordes of skin-pierced Persians in 300. It's not that I'm worried so much about myself. But do I want to send my kids into a battlefield?

(Relax, Ronnie ... I mean that metaphorically.)

Is this even a battle I want to fight? I honestly don't know. I'm a journalist, not an activist. Some feel comfortable blending the roles; I'm not one of them.

Ronnie's point, in the end, is that parents have the right to make their own choices; she just wishes some parents didn't "denigrate" the choices of other parents on their way out.

I can understand that. But I also see the value in talking honestly about this stuff.

Maybe that's the way to do battle.

(duane@citypaper.net)

 

Comments

That's a fatuous disjunction: either activist or journalist. Whatever happened to the J School injunction--"Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted". Our three kids went to Thomas Holme Elementary, Girl's High, and Boy's Central, and we were more than pleased. We live in an integrated neighborhood in the Northeast called Greenbelt Knoll which is celebrating its 50th anniversary and the Preservation Alliance has just given us historical status. We didn't flee to the suburbs, and no journalist with balls should either. I wonder what Pete Dexter would think of your flight? I know damn well he'd consider it craven. Ronnie P. is right,Duane. Patrick D.Hazard,Weimar,Germany.
by pdhazard on March 15th 2007 9:27 AM

I wrote last week and was anticipating this week's column. However, i am disappointed that you seem to have grasped that the comment about violence was unfair, but that the other prejudices about public school are still valid. The problem is not that private schools are inherently better; of course there are some that are better. The problem is the belief that moving out of the city automatically grants your child a better education. There are strong public school choices in the city. Do I really need to point out that Masterman has consistently been regarded as the best public high school in the state? My daughter’s elementary school has two Nobel Prize winners among its graduates. I could go on.
The belief that because you pay a fortune, you are providing the best education is misguided. A family member who teaches at a very expensive private school told us that, for many of their students, the best choice would be public school with the saved tuition money being spent on enrichment programs and travel. He explained his belief that most learning comes from home. This speaks to being involved as I stated last week. You do not need to be an activist for public school. You need to be an activist for your child. Too often the belief is that once you put your child in a “good” school you have handed over their education to the school. I cannot disagree more.
There are strong reasons for choosing public school and they go beyond test scores. We want our daughter to become independent, responsible, empathetic and autonomous. We want her to have self-confidence and be able to communicate with people of different backgrounds. We want her to problem solve the situations that life will throw at her. We want better for her; and we believe we have found it right here in Philadelphia
by blastula99 on March 15th 2007 4:33 PM



Also In This Week's Opinion Section

Slant:
Bombs Away
by David Faris

Loose Canon:
Getting to Eddie
by Bruce Schimmel

Feedback:
Letters to the Editor
 
 
ADVERTISEMENT