The right to a great public education

We’ve got to stop cutting public education.
To ease the budget crisis, one state after another is taking an ax to higher education.
This is cruel and shortsighted.
Cruel because it denies students the right to a decent education. Shortsighted because how will this generation of students get prepared to compete globally or even to clean up the financial mess brought about by Wall Street?
I’m a product of the worst and best public education California has to offer.
I grew up in an East Los Angeles housing project in the 1970s and 1980s.
I attended overcrowded public schools located in the inner city. Like many racial minorities from America’s barrios and ghettos, I received an inadequate education.
While I excelled in mathematics, I was never taught to read or write at a competent level throughout my K-12 schooling. To complicate matters, the longest paper assigned to me in high school was two pages long.
I taught myself how to properly read and write while going through college to compensate for my poorly funded K-12 education. But what will happen to those without this same self-drive that I learned from my Mexican immigrant mother?
Fortunately, I also benefited from affirmative action and from numerous educational outreach programs and policies like Occident College’s Upward Bound — a preparatory program for students from disadvantaged communities.
If not for such programs, I wouldn’t have made it to UCLA as an undergraduate. I wouldn’t have earned a master’s degree in urban planning there. And I wouldn’t be pursuing my doctorate at Berkeley.
So I worry about those who grow up in poor neighborhoods without the same educational safety nets that allowed for me, along with my three siblings and my wife Antonia, to attend some of the best universities in this country. I can’t help but be concerned about the plight of my wife’s elementary school students in East Los Angeles today.
Those who fight against affirmative action and against government-sponsored early educational outreach programs conveniently wash their hands of any responsibility toward those who lack the financial resources and access to human capital to go to college.
And fewer and fewer have those resources, with one state after another raising tuition and other fees.
These fee hikes couldn’t come at a worse time.
If we care about equality of opportunity, if we are concerned about our ability to compete in the global economy, it’s time to give everyone, including those from America’s barrios and ghettos, a shot at a great public education.
Alvaro Huerta is a doctoral student at the University of California at Berkeley and a visiting scholar at UCLA’s Chicano Studies Research Center. He can be reached at pmproj [at] progressive [dot] org.
- Login or register to post comments

- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend




Comments
"...I can't imagine anyone...advocating that college students graduate with $100k debt..."
Why not? Why shouldn't they consider the costs versus the benefits when deciding on college? (It is primarily this disconnect that is responsible for college costs exploding so much faster than inflation for the past few decades.)
You also wrote these:
"...and not agreeing with the idea of representative government..."
"...If you get an inkling that the program in question isn't going to benefit you immediately and in a self-aggrandizing way then you reject it. And, you don't seem to want to let a little thing like facts or actual studies get in the way..."
"...You want to radically alter it with no more sense that it rubs you the wrong way..."
You told me to relax and avoid the personal attacks, but you are happy to assign the worst motives to me. And you make no attempt to see another point of view. You are very concerned about the wealth of the already advantaged - college grads - but not so much about taxpayers.
Bottom line:
I think that the college-bound are able to weigh the costs and the benefits and decide whether a higher diploma is worth the cost of loan payments.
You think it better to stick the taxpayers, so that our already advantaged - those who are college-bound - can choose expensive enrichment without any concern for the cost-benefit wisdom of the choice.
And you delude yourself into thinking that your opinion is somehow more sophisticated than mine. Let's agree to disagree. We can let others reading the thread decide who is more self-aggrandizing.
.