From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: RE: Liberal v. Conservative
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:10:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.145908.14762@husc3.harvard.edu> gownder@husc9.harvard.edu (Joseph Gownder) writes:
>In article <2A8D24CF.5887@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>>htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes
>>> And this right-wing faction seems so much more comfortable fighting
>>> social trends (controlling the womb, alienating homosexuals, stagnating
>>							       ^^^^^^^^^^
>>> public schooling) rather than stressing whatever ideals (if they can
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> be called that) they support.
>>
>>Now don't be silly. The Republicans are the only major party who have a  
>>workable, fundamental solution to the dismal state of education. The Democrats  
>>- ever eager to please the teachers unions - are quite happy to defend the  
>>status quo indefinitely.
>>
>>	Carl Edman
>
>
>Now that's a laughable notion.  While I admit that the Democratic Party
>has, in the past, pandered to teachers unions by rolling back qualification
>requirements, Clinton (and advisor Robert Reich) has made education a 
>high priority.  

  Well, as I have pointed out in my letters to you, this is part of where
Clinton lost me.  It is true that education is a high priority in his
rhetoric as well as his record.  However, it is equally true that
he has since "caved-in" to many of the special interest groups including
the teachers unions.  In fact, he did come out publicly supporting school
choice for even privates schools earlier, but later backed off after he
was slapped on the wrist by the teachers unions.  This is all a part
of public record.

  This, combined with a variety of his other "cave-ins" leaves me with little
idea of what Clinton will really do.  I consider him an extremely bright
candidate who understands the problems facing the nation.  But, I have
also identified "Slick Willie" who will leave many of his beliefs at the
door in order to be elected.  Just look at what he did to Tsongas in Florida.

  As for funding, as has been pointed out numerous times in these threads,
we have been increasing funding greatly over the last 12 years and it
hasn't made a difference.  We need (one way or another) a much more
fundamental change in our school system.  School Choice is one idea that
has shown positive results in the few places it has been tried.  When the 
Democrats come out with another plan, I'm all ears.  However, I am certainly
convinced that school choice is better than the status quo.

   Additionally, school choice is really about giving poor
children the same choice as wealthy (read middle-class) children.
Although, I believe it would improve all schools, the most dramatic
effect would be to extend the choice of schools to the poor.  Certainly,
living in Chicago has shown me that the politics and bureaucracies of
_this_ school system have a lot to do with why the education system
isn't working.  They actually have little incentive (besides their *ahem*
good will) to educate students.  Their main concern is getting political
power (not even money necessarily.)

   Finally, I am not at all convinced that increased Federal control of
the situation is the solution at all.  I'm not saying you are suggesting
this, but others have implicitly done so.  The schools where real change
has been made (according to my readings) have been schools where central
control was given up and they were allowed to make (virtually) whatever changes
they liked.  (Such as the Harlem example.)

Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke