I share my preliminary study on parental choice in San Antonio, TX as a comparative to my
previous study of parental choice in post-apartheid. Both these studies are important because they both
seek to inquire into the nature of parental choices, a growing phenomenon that
presents distinct challenges and possibilities for their children. While there
is abundance of research about African American/Black parents on school choice
and market mechanisms (e.g., Buras, 2009; Chapman, 2005; Pedroni, 2007), there is little research about Latino/a parents on these same
issues, particularly as they affect the Latino/parents in San
Antonio, TX. I hope to
generate some broader discussion in terms of understanding the plight of
historically marginalized Latino/a parents in this part of the United States.
The comparative aspect is also important because both these communities were
historically marginalized, albeit in different contexts, one in the Global
South and the other in the Global North.
After 4 decades of
apartheid and segregated education in South
Africa, new laws allowed desegregation of schools for the first time
in 1996. As a result, a large number of Black parents participated in school
choice (Ndimande, 2012). In the US, school choice is also connected to attempts to eradicate
racial segregation of schools (Lubienski, 2001). In short, this preliminary
study compares the perspectives of two groups of parents, in South Africa and
San Antonio, Texas, probing their reasoning for the choices they make about
their children’s education.
The National Alliance for Public Charter
Schools reports that 83,5%
Latino/a parents in the San Antonio Independent School District send their
children to charter public/private schools. This is a high number considering
the large public schools districts that San Antonio currently runs.
Contextualize this phenomenon in San Antonio within the history of schools
choice across the nation is crucial. Lubienski (2001) argues that in the U.S.
school choice dates back to the pre-common school era when communities often
had multiple forms of schooling available, including church schools, township
schools, home schools, and schools similar to charter schools where localities would
contract with non-public providers to offer education to the area (Ibid).
Currently, educational policy in the US promotes choice. This policy advances
the ideology that a market-oriented approach will benefit the educational
outcomes of children. This includes support for competition between schools
through national testing systems, national curriculum standards, and the
relaxation of certification requirements for teachers (Hursh, 2008; McNeil,
2000). This neoliberal agenda for education reform is further promoted by the
establishment of private charter schools (i.e., for-profit schools) and public
charter schools (i.e., supported by public funds) to compete with traditional
public schools. This competition also entails school choice for parents.
It is also
important to note that in the US, there has been considerable research on the
actual educational outcomes and the social effects of school choice (for
example, Lubienski & Lubienski, 2014). A major set of criticisms target the
ability of charter schools to engineer their criteria for admission, which can
have the effect of excluding children by social class, ethnicity or various
special needs. In South Africa, although Black parents can choose schools,
either (wealthy) public or private, their children also face discrimination and
cultural prejudice in schools outside Black neighborhoods (Ndimande, 2012).
Both studies are based on in-depth qualitative interviews,
which explored the common-sense assumptions that inform the parents’ school
choices in these different socio-geographical contexts. One of the preliminary findings in the study with Latino/a parents in San
Antonio is about perceived teacher attitudes and lack of commitment to
teaching. Most parents said they were not happy about teachers’ attitudes in
regards to homework. They were also not happy with teachers’ tendency to label
their children as “slow learners.” On the other hand, Black parents of South
Africa perceive inequality of resources among schools as one of the major
reasons they remove their children from poor schools to wealthy (i.e., formerly
White) schools. Their sense of “choice” is tied to the issue of resources.
Both studies show
that parents use school choice for reasons that are important to the education
of their children. Although most of the Black parents who participate in the
South African study are mostly working class and poor, they are fully aware of
the importance of receiving a better education, especially in this era of
globalization. Likewise, Latino/a parents in San Antonio, who are mostly middle
and upper-middle class, do not want to see their children labeled by teachers
in public school or being “taught to the test.” They use choice to find ways
for their children toward a critical and engaging education in alternative
schools.
by Bekisizwe
Ndimande
References
Buras, K. L. 2009. '‘We have to tell our story’: neo-griots, racial resistance, and schooling
in the other south'. Race Ethnicity and Education 12, no.4: 427 – 453.
Chapman, T. K. 2005. Peddling backwards: Reflections of Plessy and Brown in the Rockford
public schools de jure desegregation efforts. Race Ethnicity and Education 8, no. 1: 29 –
44.
Hursh, D. (2008). High-stakes Testing and the Decline of Teaching and Learning, Rowman
Littlefield
Lubienski, C. (2001). Redefining “public” education: Charter schools, common schools, and the
rhetoric of reform. Teachers College Record, 103(4), 634–666.
Lubienki, C. & Lubienki, S. (2014). The public school advantage: Why public schools
outperform private schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of curriculum reform. New York: Routledge
Ndimande, B. S. (2012). Race and resources: Black parents’ perspectives on post-
apartheid South African schools, Race Ethnicity and Education, 15(4), pp. 525-544.
Pedroni, T, C. 2007. Market movement: African American involvement in school voucher
Reform. New York: Routledge.
