X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:47:50 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         gallagherj@SATURN.GLASSBORO.EDU
Subject:      The reality of the Clinton school choice.

Roger Wilson and others have criticized the Clintons over
Chelsea's placement in a private school. I can't understand how
educators miss the difference between some haughty philosophical
stance and reality. We are not dealing with some inanimate object
but a human being, a young twelve year old girl. Have the critics
bothered to look at this child during the TV blitz this week? I
wonder whether they would subject their own daughter to a public
school education in an urban system, especially one which is
potentially dangerous. I wonder whether these critics from Canada
and rural areas have experienced the difficult and dangerous
situation in many of our urban schools.

Notwithstanding Clinton's statements during the campaign (which
he may be regretting now that the reality of the situation has
set in), let us look at the situation. Where in the DC school
system would Chelsea have been placed? What is the situation in
that particular school? Is it a school where there are problems
with drugs, violence, and other unrest? (I know, there are drugs
in just about every school these days, but is the situation
blatant and public?) How well is the educational program being
delivered in that school? Are the teachers performing behind
locked doors? Are kids being frisked each day upon entry to see
if they are packing a weapon? (They probably would if she
attended the school.) I haven't heard nor read answers to these
questions. Does somebody on this list know the facts of the
situation, or is all of this discussion hypothetical gas?

Now, let us examine some of the other realities of the situation.
Chelsea Clinton is the ONLY daughter of the President of the
United States - and if the Clintons had other children, I would
expect the same would apply. I was once a policeman, a federal
officer, and one who studied terrorism in the military. From
those perspectives, placing the President's daughter in a
dangerous situation puts a number of people in jeopardy. Her
Secret Service guards must protect her. Can you imagine the
situation of armed guards in a potentially dangerous urban
school? I can just see the headlines: Secret Service in Shootout
at PS 35 with Student. Put yourself in the situation of the
Secret Service agent. How does he/she react when a kid pulls a
weapon? Would he/she hesitate, and end up getting killed? They
are people too with spouses, and families. How do we protect the
other children and staff of the school from becoming innocent
victims of a stray bullet? A student was shot this week when a
pistol went off accidentally in a school, brought there by
another student who carried it for "protection." What would all
this do in terms of disrupting the education of the OTHER
children in the school? Other threats to Chelsea include
kidnapping, violent acts including assassination, acts of hostage
taking, and terrorist acts against the whole school. There are a
lot of nuts in the world who would do something just for the
thrill, to get attention, or to forward some political or social
cause. Recall John Hinkley, Kiki Fromm, and the nut who drove the
dynamite packed truck at the marine barracks in Beirut. True,
these threats can occur in the private school or anywhere, but if
the urban school has its own dangers, do we add them to the
problem of protecting this child?

I don't believe in using a twelve year old girl as a pawn for
some social purpose, notwithstanding Gene Glass' "hostage" theory
presented earlier during the Kozol discussions. The daughter of
the President of the United States is not a "normal" child. Her
father's position makes her special in terms of safety and
protection. The Clintons probably got some strong advice from the
Secret Service and the DC police concerning potential threats,
enough to give them considerable concern for the safety of
Chelsea. What kind of parent would put a child in danger on
purpose? I'm glad the Clintons are good parents concerned for
their daughter.

Perhaps it is time to put this to bed. Let us focus on what
President Clinton will do to address the problems of education,
including those of our urban schools. Let that be the test of his
resolve to improve education, one with far greater impact than
which school his child attends.

John V. Gallagher
School of Education and Related Professional Studies
Rowan College of New Jersey
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU