From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:28:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.202545.6717@bronte.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>In article 92C@newsserver.technet.sg, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>
>>Yes, Clinton has sent his daughter to a private school. He has done, publicly,
>>what most liberals have been doing privately for some time. Even (especially?)
>>public school teachers are increasingly sending their children to private
>>schools to avoid the consequences of their own ideologies.
>
>Clinton is not violating any "liberal" principles by allowing his daughter to attend
>a private school.  Liberals do not oppose private schools, nor do they argue that
>everyone ought to send children to public schools.  (Indeed, from the viewpoint of 

They oppose school choice, which amounts to condemning most children to
whatever public school monopoly is in power in their area. It is a distinction
without a difference for most American families.

>most Democrats, Clinton is not even a liberal.  He is a moderate.)  You clearly 
>blame all of the ills in our public school system on some vague, unidentified
>liberal programs.  I would attribute at least some of the mess to a public that
>has undervalued and underfunded education.  Stingy taxpayers and stingy politicians. 

I wouldn't call $300 billion a year stingy. In some areas we place below
Korea on student performance, while spending huge multiples of their own
education budget. "wasteful" not "stingy", since performance doesn't match the cost.

>>It was not always like this. Education in America was not always run by the
>>state, it was not always such a microcosm of the soviet economy. The fact is,
>>the socialization of education in America occured roughly at the turn of the
>>century when socialism was "the wave of the future". Before that, education
>>was primarily a private or community affair much like churches.

....
>you would really be making a case against public education.  At best, there is 
>only evidence that the US system has recently stumbled on a formula for bungling
>the education of its children.  That reflects poorly on our implementation of
>public education, not on public education in general.

School choice will help, through parental involvement, direct the elites towards
the solutions to the poor implementations called public schools.

>BTW, the only beef that some "liberals" have with Clinton's action is with the 
>message that it sends out.  I doubt that sending Chelsea to a public school 

Well, Liberals take symbolism more seriously than reality sometimes.

>would have done anything more for public education than Amy Carter did by
>attending a public school.  Symbolic action can become a liability when 
>it substitutes for substantive reform.  The silver lining in this little tempest
>is that Clinton will be more motivated than ever to support public education
>in ways that count.

But you still DON'T GET IT. The problem is NOT that Clinton sends his
child to an expensive private school - he *should* have that choice.
The *real* problem is the hundreds of thousands of D.C. familiies who do not have
that choice, and so are condemned to send their kids to an inferior school system,
who will drop out at a rate close to 50%, will be unable to compete in
the high-tech economy of the 21st century, and thus will become further
victims of our failed state education monopoly etc.

By his private actions, Clinton has shown that some parents can make a good
choice for their children. Let's make that choice available to *everyone*,
for the benefit of our children and their future.

Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.activism