It is no secret that the financial crisis has affected a wide segment of the population. Yet while the worst of the crisis seems to have abated for many, its most recent victims aren't even old enough to vote.
The Boston School Committee on Dec. 15 voted to close nine public schools and merge eight others into four. The U.S. Department of Education is currently investigating these closings on grounds of discrimination because the majority of students at these schools come from low−income families. Forty−four percent of affected students are Latino and another 46 percent are black. Superintendent of Boston Public Schools Carol Johnson claimed that the schools were selected because they were the lowest−ranked among families in the area, had poor academic performance and subpar facilities.
Racial discrimination aside, low−income students need access to free education more than any other student group in the country. Education is ultimately going to be their ticket to a better life. Shutting down schools in their area is definitely not the way to help them go about this.
Similar decisions are unfortunately being made in other states as well. Michigan state officials last week ordered the city of Detroit to close half its schools in order to balance deficits and cope with a declining student population. The average size of a high school class would shoot up to about 60 students. Though Detroit is not facing the same discrimination charges as Boston, the main issue here is still the same: By the time the plan is over, 44 schools will be closed and educational opportunities for students throughout the city will decline considerably.
The slow economic recovery has made it clear that something has to be cut in order to close budget gaps. Though it is always difficult to change the status quo, there are some plausible targets that wouldn't hit students nearly as hard. School administrators, for example, tend to be both overly plentiful and overpaid in most public schools. That's not to say that a school can function without a principal, but many have multiple superintendents, assistant principals and secretaries whose tasks can be consolidated. It would be far more prudent to trim these positions rather than shutting down entire schools.
Certainly we can't expect a few administrative salaries to compare to the savings of shutting down or merging 17 public schools, but the underlying argument still stands: Students should not be affected.
When the financial crisis first hit in 2008, University President Lawrence Bacow made it his goal that any cuts made to the university's operations would not be felt by students. Instead, Tufts implemented a modified hiring freeze, declined to give most faculty and administrators' raises and put capital projects on hold — all in the name of keeping the "student experience" untainted.
It is unfortunate that children much younger than college students and at such early stages in their educational careers have to suffer in order to balance budgets. Children in school now are one day going to be the future of this country. While it may seem easy now to close schools, save money and fill in the budget gap, such a tactic is something that is undoubtedly going to hurt the country in the long run. Terminating expendable positions such as those held by administrators needs to be considered first before states decide to shut the doors on its public institutions.
When money is tight, things need to be cut back but educational opportunities for children should be sacrosanct.
