"I just have a position that any child that's in a failing school should be able to get out, or be in a position to have that school fixed"
About this Quote
The line stakes out a child-first ethic: no student should be trapped by an institution that is not educating them, and adults have a duty either to open an exit or repair what is broken. It captures the tension at the heart of American education policy between immediate relief for families and the slower work of systemic reform. Calling a school “failing” invokes test scores, graduation rates, safety, and climate, but also the lived experience of parents who sense when a school is not working for their child. The remedy is framed as a two-lane road: school choice as a near-term escape, and accountability-driven improvement as a collective fix.
John Engler, as Michigan’s governor in the 1990s, pushed one of the nation’s earlier waves of school choice, signing laws that expanded charter schools and open enrollment. He argued that competition would spur district schools to improve while giving families alternatives, particularly in cities like Detroit. The results were mixed: some charters outperformed nearby district schools and became sought-after options, while weak oversight allowed others to underdeliver, fueling criticism that choice without guardrails can fragment systems and neglect the hardest-to-serve students.
The statement also raises questions about who can actually “get out.” Transportation, information, admissions practices, and special education capacity all shape access to alternatives. Meanwhile, fixing schools requires clear standards, honest measures of performance, resources for turnaround, strong leadership, and community trust. Closing or restructuring chronically underperforming schools can help, but closures carry social costs and can deepen instability in neighborhoods already under strain.
At its core is a moral claim about time. Children get only one fourth grade, one ninth grade; they cannot wait for multi-year reforms to bear fruit. A durable approach honors that urgency while investing in the public system’s capacity to improve: high-quality options, rigorous oversight of all schools, equitable funding, and a commitment to address the poverty and segregation that feed school failure in the first place.
John Engler, as Michigan’s governor in the 1990s, pushed one of the nation’s earlier waves of school choice, signing laws that expanded charter schools and open enrollment. He argued that competition would spur district schools to improve while giving families alternatives, particularly in cities like Detroit. The results were mixed: some charters outperformed nearby district schools and became sought-after options, while weak oversight allowed others to underdeliver, fueling criticism that choice without guardrails can fragment systems and neglect the hardest-to-serve students.
The statement also raises questions about who can actually “get out.” Transportation, information, admissions practices, and special education capacity all shape access to alternatives. Meanwhile, fixing schools requires clear standards, honest measures of performance, resources for turnaround, strong leadership, and community trust. Closing or restructuring chronically underperforming schools can help, but closures carry social costs and can deepen instability in neighborhoods already under strain.
At its core is a moral claim about time. Children get only one fourth grade, one ninth grade; they cannot wait for multi-year reforms to bear fruit. A durable approach honors that urgency while investing in the public system’s capacity to improve: high-quality options, rigorous oversight of all schools, equitable funding, and a commitment to address the poverty and segregation that feed school failure in the first place.
Quote Details
| Topic | Student |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List
