Anyone who has attended a public elementary, middle or high school knows the intensity of the dreaded state tests. Each year, ominous words such as “budget cuts,” “performance standards” and “academic probation” are tossed into the air and fall directly on the heads of students who are soon to have to buckle down and take a six-hour test to prove they have learned something in the course of the academic year.
These tests are part of the bureaucratic lock and key process that decides to what extent a particular school is funded. Student performance is a constant concern for schools because it affects not only how much money they receive from the various levels of government but also how much freedom they have to spend that money.
The Oxford School Board recently went through a controversy about building a separate school for low income students. According to a Daily Mississippian article, the school board apologized and stated that there were no plans to create another school.
The Daily Mississippian also reported that the notion to create a separate facility was put forward by a third party called the Urban Learning and Leadership Center, an entity that specializes in improving performance of low-income students.
All of the emotion aside, this idea is not that far off from what happens now; students take different courses based on their performance. Furthermore, I believe the exploration of new ways to improve performance by the school board is out of genuine interest in student welfare. Oxford is one of the top performing districts in the state, but it is the gap in performance that officials find concerning.
From what I can gather, the dissatisfaction seems to be that a new school for low income students would appear to be another form of segregation.
Regardless of what the objections are, this issue is of incredible importance. The American Educational Research Association reports that students who are unable to read at the usual rate of their grade level by the third grade are four times less likely to graduate, and a low income student with the same problem is 13 times less likely to graduate.
As an adult, if you want to learn something, you are responsible for learning it, but that is not the case with minors. I honestly do not think there is an easy solution to the problem. Public high schools are, by their very nature, flawed. Unless a school has the funds to cater to each student in a unique way, something is being lost, and I do not know of any public institution of any kind that can accomplish this method.
Additionally, school is a miserable enough experience on its own without the added shame or arrogance of going to “the rich school” or “the poor school.”
In any case, we should not stop trying to improve performance and quality of life through education. I would encourage anyone who hates the idea of a separate facility to offer a different, better solution. That is how democracy works: the best ideas float to the surface.
Ethan Davis is a junior philosophy and English double major from Laurel.
