From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 7 Jan 93 12:51:39 CST


In article <C0Gxry.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.

Do "most liberals" send their children to private schools?

>                                                              Even (especially?)
> public school teachers are increasingly sending their children to private
> schools to avoid the consequences of their own ideologies.

Depends on the school district.  Some public school districts are run poorly
(ie Washington DC, with a dropout rate ~50%), while others are run quite well
(ie MN, WS, IA).

> 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.
> 
> Perhaps it is time that we admitted, and perhaps Clinton has admited
> publicly by his action, that public education has failed,

Don't you think you are over generalizing?  Your statement is like 
saying capitalism has failed because GM & IBM are loosing money.

>                                                              that you
> can't improve education by central planning, that simply putting more
> money into the same failed institutions is an exercise in futility,
> ney stupidity.

Some public schools are making changes without increased centralization.
Minnesota has open enrollment, where funding follows the student and
schools compete to attract and keep students.

> Yes, there are alternatives to central planning and bureaucracy in
> education.

I agree.
>            Its time we discussed them seriously instead of clinging
> to tired old ideologies regarding "diversity" and "disparity".

That's not the only tired old ideologies to avoid.
>                                                                 Maybe
> privatized educational system cannot guarantee everybody an equal
> education but, as it stands, only an ideologue could fail to see that
> public education is failing most dramatically among those it is
> supposed to be helping the most. It is at its worst, not its best, in
> the ghettos of Washington, DC.

It's also time to admit that drug prohibition is fueling the increase in
violence in inner city schools.

> One Democrat, at least, has recognized this, if only in terms of decisions
> in his personal life and that of his family.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton