This article titled “Stop Austin SchoolDistrict’s Flawed Proposal for Single-Gender Schools” was posted in the Austin
American Statesman on Monday, November 26, 2012. The editorial was written by
the “Editorial Board” which doesn’t give us much credibility since we don’t know
exactly who wrote it or what makes them credible authors for this subject. The
Editorial Board’s intended audience is people who care about Bradley’s proposal
and those who have the ability to implement change; more specifically the four
new trustees that have been sworn in and the new leadership team that has just
been elected for the Austin Independent School District board. The Editorial Board
wants the trustees and leadership team to “get rid of distractions that are
dividing the community and diverting attention from the district’s primary goal
of improving high school graduation rates.” They want the trustees and
leadership team to stop a proposal that would turn Garcia and Pearce middle
schools into single-gender campuses. The Editorial Board says they understand
that Trustee Cheryl Bradley, who represents the East Austin community where the
schools would be located, has a strong belief that single-gender schools would
improve the performance of middle schools in her district, but it is wrong to
gamble on such a belief when there are proven methods the district can employ
to improve student performance. They say the proposal is deeply flawed and
gives five reasons why this is so.
The first reason the Editorial Board gives is
that is inefficient because there is a similar proposal that Bradley’s proposal
is competing with that is already being partially financed by the Moody
Foundation. There has been no collaboration between the two proposals and there
is no data to show that the district could sustain two all-boys schools.
The second reason The Editorial Board gives is
it is wasteful. If Bradley’s proposal was stopped, the program financed by
Moody could share a space with Garcia’s co-ed program which would maximize the
district’s facilities, but since it hasn’t been stopped yet, the campus is off
limits. It would cost more money to have it at the Alternative Learning Center which
is where it will be if Bradley’s proposal isn’t stopped.
The third reason they give is the plan is
deeply flawed. The Editorial Board says there is no comparable model the
district can point to regarding Bradley’s proposal. There is however a model
for the Moody proposal. Successful all-male academies usually require students
to apply for admission while Bradley’s proposal is relying on zoned attendance.
The Editorial Board says that a merger of the two plans could offer both approaches,
offering admissions first to Pearce and Garcia students and allowing the extra
seats to be filled by application.
The fourth reason the Editorial Board gives is
that Bradley’s plan would likely decrease enrollment at Garcia and Pearce. The Editorial
Board says the district came up with figures saying that about 30 percent of
students in the attendance zone already transfer out of Garcia and Pearce
already and if they were converted to single-gender schools even more would
transfer.
The fifth and final reason they give is the
proposal would displace more East Austin schools. The Editorial Board says that
if Bradley’s proposal was given the go-ahead there would be a huge displacement
of students not going to Garcia and Pearce anymore but if the Moody plan was
given the go-ahead there would be a huge boost of enrollment in those schools.
I agree with the Editorial Board’s argument
that Bradley’s proposal is flawed and most likely would not benefit East Austin
schools as much as a combination of Bradley’s proposal and the proposal that is
being partially funded by the Moody foundation. I do not, however, agree with
the evidence the Editorial Board gives to support their argument. The reasons
they give are somewhat flimsy and don’t hold a lot of factual evidence. For example,
the third reason they give to argue that the Bradley proposal is deeply flawed
is just again that the plan is deeply flawed! The Editorial Board makes a good
point that the combination of the Moody plan and the Bradley proposal would be
a much better way of helping both Garcia and Pearce middle schools in having
higher enrollment and possible bettering the schools themselves, but that is
not what they said in the very beginning of the article. At the beginning they
mentioned nothing of the Moody plan and just said they wanted the Bradley
proposal to be stopped.
I agree with the argument that Bradley’s proposal
is flawed and that it would not benefit East Austin schools without the
combined efforts of Bradley’s proposal and the Moody plan, but I think the Editorial
Board could have done a better job in staying constant throughout the editorial
and having better, backed-up evidence supporting their claims.
