Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, April 06, 2007
Ken Blackwell :: Townhall.com Columnist
School Choice and Civil Rights
by Ken Blackwell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Thirty-nine years ago this week, an assassin's bullet took the life of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Rev. King fought against the intolerance and ignorance that denied African-Americans equal access to public transportation, education, employment and justice.

Since his death, America has come a long way.

Today, our nation is a testament to both Rev. King's accomplishments and those of whom he inspired. African-Americans hold positions of power and influence at the highest levels of government and industry. Progress has been made on the old civil rights battle fronts. But new fronts have opened.

The battle over school choice is one. In fact, school choice programs - developed to free poor urban and rural children from failing public schools - represent this century's defining civil rights issue.

While the battle is brewing in Texas and Florida, nowhere is it more crucial than in Ohio. Here, newly elected Governor Ted Strickland, in a nod to his political allies in the state teachers' unions, is waging an aggressive attack on school vouchers and charter schools.

Calling school vouchers "undemocratic" and charter schools a "dismal failure," Gov. Strickland, in his first major public policy address, slammed the door of educational opportunity on thousands of poor children and crushed the hopes of their parents.

By denying these children the equal access to a quality education that choice programs offer, he also denied that the bloated public education bureaucracy and its entrenched unions have failed our children. Gov. Strickland positions his opposition to choice as part of an overall effort to eliminate inefficiency and force accountability, but he misleads.

Currently, large numbers of Ohio's public schools, particularly those in the state's urban areas, fail to teach our children. Public school failure can be measured in many ways. For example, over 115,550 students in Ohio's eight largest cities are attending 251 schools not meeting even the state's minimal education standards. Far larger numbers of children are receiving educations that leave them completely unprepared for today's global economy.

In contrast, school choice programs are working and growing. First in the form of charter schools for 76,000 pupils in over 200 schools, then in an autism scholarship expanding choice to key middle class constituencies, and now to the EdChoice program making another 50,000 students eligible for 14,000 vouchers to escape failing public schools.

These fledgling choice programs are becoming increasingly popular because public schools are performing so poorly. In fact, Ohio's charter schools and vouchers are only available to students living in districts in academic emergency or academic watch.

Parents like the programs because they empower them. Teacher unions oppose the programs because they weaken their position at the collective bargaining table.

As taxpayers who contribute to overall public education funding, parents should have the broadest educational options available.

Instead, too many are forced to raise their children in failing districts with few options. The public school monopoly dictates, through geographical boundaries, who will attend what school. Tax dollars are swallowed by unaccountable bureaucracies more concerned with administrative requirements than with children.

Ohio's charter schools and vouchers are changing the dynamic and offering a solution. The programs infuse the underperforming public education system with a healthy dose of free market competition. And through that competition, improve education across the board.

The Columbus Dispatch praised their contribution stating in a recent editorial, "The only thing that has prodded the conventional school system to do something about its mediocrity, inefficiency and inertia is the alarm generated when students and the money to educate them began to decamp for voucher and charter schools."

The newspaper also took issue with Gov. Strickland's lack of accountability argument writing, "Parents can pull their children out of these schools whenever they like for any reason. Until the advent of charters and vouchers, the majority of parents had no way of punishing a failing conventional public school so immediately and directly."

The Dayton Daily News also joined the debated adding, "Ohio's public schools are better today because of the competition charter schools and vouchers have created. The governor and public school advocates need to deal with that."

These two newspapers, usually all too willing to carry water for Ohio's new Democrat governor, sharply broke ranks with Gov. Strickland because they understand the negative impact his push will have on poor children. They care.

So too should school choice advocates across the nation. In Ohio, opponents of educational options and empowerment are emboldened by recent electoral victories. They control the governor's office, wield the veto pen and stand ready to eliminate charter schools and vouchers.

In the 1960's, Rev. King fought segregationists who put up barriers to basic human rights and denied African-Americans the civil rights each of our nation's citizens are guaranteed. Today, we fight entrenched bureaucracy, greedy teachers' unions and their politician allies. Their hearts may be different, but their desired result is the same. They seek to deny poor children a fundamental civil right - equal access to a quality education.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mr. Blackwell, a contributing editor at Townhall.com, is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and American Civil Rights Union.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ken Blackwell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
I Was There
How touching that conservatives now applaud Martin Luther King Jr for his accomplishments in civil rights. When he was alive, they hated his guts. Frequently they stated that he was a Communist and/or was "put up to it" by Communists. When schools were desegregated they stood on sidewalks spitting on six year-old children trying to attend first grade. They screamed "Two, Four, Six, Eight, We don't want to integrate" and "Go back to Africa, N*****!". Then they established private so-called Christian schools and established the homeschooling movement with the original and explicit purpose of avoiding integrated schools. They fought voter registration and harrassed, threatened, intimidated, and sometimes shot those who worked for it. They raged when local and state laws (restricted housing, interracial marriage, employment, university admission) were overturned by federal law. Sometimes they took matters into their own hands by bombing churches and committing other murders.

Now they have conveniently forgotten the racist origins of their movement (in spite of common knowledge that the Republican "Southern Front" tapped into racist resentment). Not only that, they now project their own racism onto political opponents, establishing a new definition of chutzpah. Unfortunately, some of us are still living who witnessed their whole sorry history.

school choice
Lilly's comments notwithstanding, it was the solid Democrat party that controlled southern politics at the time of MLK, just as today it is again the Democrats who oppose school choice for inner-city blacks as a way for these children to escape these ghetto plantations by way of obtaining a decent education. If Democrats truly want to help inner-city blacks, as Mr. Blackwell suggests they would be supporting school choice and charter schools, instead of supporting the public school establishment that lines Democrat coffers with their tributes for maintaining the failing public schools status quo.

If you were there, Lilly,
you obviously weren't paying attention. George Wallace was neither a conservative or a Republican.
One of his quotes, from 1966,
"I am an Alabama Democrat, not a national Democrat. I’m not kin to those folks. The difference between a national Democrat and an Alabama Democrat is like the difference between a Communist and a non-Communist."
Fascinating that you believe also that the homeschooling movement was (is?)racist. I homeschooled all four of my children so that they could receive an education, after being told by the school principal, "You just get your children on the bus. We'll take over from there. What happens in school is NOT your concern."
What other dysfunctional beliefs do you hold?

Dear Lilly
I am saddened to see that I who firmly supported civil rights and stood behind Martin Luther King am now thought to have hated his guts. I am also appalled at the thought that because there were a lot of people in the South claiming to be conservative and protesting any form of integration you can now paint every conservative today with the same wide brush. First and foremost it saddens me even further to see that you have bought into the big lie that every conservative are racist bigots who are out to destroy Black people. Its not even true of the majority of us. "Son of a Beach" is right when he says that the Democrats were firmly in charge in the South during the era you to which you are referring. This begs the question: have the Democrats changed their position on racial matters? If you can accept that they have then why can you not accept that is likely that those "conservatives" you saw in that era have changed as well. Can you allow for that possibility?

Why is it that you and many others persist in believing that people do not grow and change and develop? That they are not always the same person they once were? I am not saying racism is dead. There are still people out there with the mentality of the KKK. But don't confuse them with conservatives! You and I probably share many of the same goals and desires in life , and we probably differ on how to achieve them, but we are not at odds with you because of your race or color.

I wish to point out that I have many, many friends who home school. I can personally assure you that they are not doing this because they hate black people and wish to be separated from them. The cost and time and effort and battles they have fought to be allowed to home school were done for one simple reason. They did not want to expose their children's minds and their souls to be exposed to the anti-Christian idea's embraced subtly by the Public School Curriculum. Their one and only concern was for the spiritual welfare of their children. There are certainly many Black parents who home school - are they racist bigots as well?

As to Christian Schools, I did not live in the South during the era that these schools were established. But I did live in Michigan where Public Schools have always been integrated, at least during my (67 years)life time. I can assure you that the many Christian Schools there, were not established to achieve racial segregation. They are also attended by non-white children as well. Please don't assume racial motivation is the purpose for every Christian School.

Ask yourself how much has your life improved since the day of Martin Luther King? If it has improved considerably, thank the Lord for all of us, Black and White, liberal and conservative, who stood with his ideals and principles. It if has not improved much or not to the degree you firmly believe that it should have, then ask your self one more question. Which political party was in power for the longest period of time during your lifetime? Why have they NOT succeeded in helping you achieve the life you want? They are distinguished by being overwhelmingly liberal. It can not be laid at the doorstep of the conservatives who overall were not in a position to successfully block liberal Democrat's efforts!

Racial hatred and bigotry have existed since the beginning of time, It exists among all ethnic and cultural groups through out the world. it is not new to us and was even the United States at its worst during slavery did not achieve the degree of inhumane treatment other slave societies did. Thats is no excuse of course, but many of us conservatives and liberals alike agree that it should not be tolerated. While we may disagree on how to abolish racism in our society we are not motivated by hatred of one race or another. Lets stop racial paranoia in its tracks! We can argue the methods but we must stop the name calling and labeling that makes broad and unfounded assumptions about any group.

school choice
To all you liberals....When black children were bused past their neighborhood schools it was called segregation, when my white sons were bused past their neighborhood schools it was called integration. This is a great example of democrat doubletalk.

You're making the wrong "choice"
The reason that "choice" doesn't please the Liberals is that people persist in making "the wrong choice."

In the Atlanta area parents have moved into neighbourhoods by choice that are largely of one racial group. There is nothing wrong with this if they have the choice to live anywhere they want to live, and they choose to live in an All Black neighbourhood -- yet the Liberals are screaming about this being "racism" somehow. These parents are also demanding that their children attend neighbourhood schools, although the schools are largely Black, because it is more important to them that the child be in the neighbourhood than that he be lined up Black/White/Black/White somewhere. They have discovered that sitting next to a White kid won't make their kid any smarter; good teaching and proximity of his parents just might. This too is not "racism"; it is parents making a free choice.

But since you're making "the wrong choice", it can't be allowed!

This is the same argument I hear from those on both sides of the Mommy War. Women were liberated so we could make choices -- and yet those who chose careers are angry that those who could choose careers and instead choose to make homemaking and child rearing their career have freely made "the wrong choice". Ditto those who choose the homemaker role -- they are convinced that their sisters who choose full time professional careers -- and to remain unmarried and childless -- have made "the wrong choice" and that they must be stopped for the good of the country as they're all becoming "emasculating Lesbian b****es" etc.

Kanukistan has handled this difficulty by forbidding choice whenever possible, and convincing the proles that they will become frightened and confused if they are asked to choose between, say, two brands of baby food or two chain book stores. Most of the people in the GTA have fallen for it.

Perhaps the teachers unions would be happier in Canada.

But in any case, by defining the problem properly: that problem being "When Choice does not further Liberal Goals, should Choice Be Repeaeled?" you will be better able to handle it. The problem has nothing to do with schools at all. IT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT TO DO WHEN PEOPLE 'CHOOSE' SOMETHING YOU DON'T LIKE.

GET BACK TO CHOICE ARGUMENTS
All the rhetoric about republicans vs. demos (ironically the author is black) is fine but the real issue is school choice. School choice in its purist form can only be accomplished through vouchers or transferable tax credits to ANY school (yes, secular progressives even parochial schools) for ALL FAMILIES. I have scrimped, saved, and in general "done-without" so my children could all attend Catholic schools, while MY MONEY is extracted to support mediocre public schools. Public schools whose moral and political agenda basically makes them liberal "training camps". It is all about THE MONEY and corrupt, leftist, teacher's unions trying to feather their own nests. But then, I guess I can understand those with the what were generally the lowest college GPAs trying to avoid competition.

$$$$$$$$$$$
“But I did live in Michigan where Public Schools have always been integrated, at least during my (67 years)lifetime.”

Although I have a tendency to agree with your logic, the above article, and am certainly in favor of school vouchers, I would point out that your historical accuracy is a bit askew.

I attended public school in Kalamazoo, Michigan, which was ordered to desegregate by federal fiat in 1964. After a great deal of student and parental activism by the black community, in 1967, the high school I attended was forced to allow the participation of black cheerleaders, teachers and administrators.

In addition, Western Michigan University here would not allow black students to live on campus until hiring their first black professor in 1963. Years later that black professor subsequently became a financial client of mine.

I know this because several athletes, including WMU’s first All-American football player and their only Olympic Gold Medallist and world record holder in the 60-yard dash, both of whom happened to be black, lived with our family.

Just wondering
Question: Blackwell states that "115,500 students in Ohio's eight largest cities are attending 251 schools not meeting even the state's minimal education standards." How many charter schools, I wonder, meet those same standards? Or are students, in terms strictly defined by "education standards" going from the frying pan into the fire by leaving public schools for charter schools.

Civil Rights
Mr. Blackwell's points are well taken; however, if this is about Civil Rights - then why should only the poor and black children be covered by vouchers? Civil Rights are for ALL - GOVERNMENT schools are a terrible place to send any child and particularly Christian children. It is a place where children are indoctrinated with the HUMANIST religion, taught evolution (the absurd junk science which is the cornerstone of Humanism) without any opportunity to learn about intelligent design. Taught that diverse cultures around the world no matter how steeped in witchcraft, communism, or hatred of America is preferred, and that we are citizens of the world, united for the "common good" (as defined by a godless one-world government of the elite, for the elite and by the elite) and denied any teaching of our Christian Heritage and the Providential intervention in the affairs of men, which made it possible to establish a Christian Nation, where the individual was endowed by his CREATOR with unalienable rights. They are now taught that these rights are bestowed on them by the GOVERNMENT, with the consent of the majority of fellow citizens who have been indoctrinated to believe that it is OK to steal from some to buy votes from others. They are taught to be tolerant of every imaginable perversion and to NEVER judge or HATE except those things they are permitted to hate- like those terrible people who agree with Rev. King that people SHOULD BE JUDGED - by the content of their character. Rev. King wrote some of the most inspired words ever penned from the Birmingham jail - concerning civil disobedience. Most of what he said has been reduced to 'GIMME' politics - much like the words of Jesus instructing US (individually) to be our "brothers" keeper from "Sell all YOU have and give to the poor to "support the welfare state" that way we don't have to be compassionate 'cause "BIG BROTHER LOVES YOU - SO - WE DON'T HAVE TO! To quote another great American, Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence - "WE MUST ALL HANG TOGETHER, OR ASSUREDLY WE SHALL ALL HANG SEPARATELY! In closing, I would suggest that all parents read MLK's letter, inform themselves about United Nations Agenda 21 as regards parental rights (rights of the CHILD) then they must decide whether it is worth the fight - because that is what it will take. If "Moms in touch", AFA, AFR, and other groups who claim to be concerned about the family will organize a "Hang Together day" keeping their children home demand vouchers or "off the top" tax deductions whichever they prefer. It will only happen IF the PARENTS really care.
W ,

Political Illogic
Lilly. Panties still in a twist, I see. Funny how that translates into a twisted historical perspective.

"...slammed the door of educational opportunity on thousands of poor children and crushed the hopes of their parents..."

Now if those same parents would just stop voting en masse for the idiots who are causing the problem... (That would be the Democrats, for you politically-impaired.)

Who cares who did what in 1960?
I can't think of a single, valid reason why anybody would be talking about who took what position on education in 1960. That was nearly 50 years ago. If we want to discuss history, fine; if we're discussing education in the modern world, what happened 50 years ago is irrelevant.

What I want is for some leftist to explain to me in a sensible fashion why competition among schools is a bad thing... 'cause I've been having this discussion for about 2 decades now, and have yet to hear a single, valid reason why schools shouldn't have to compete.

Ultimately, whatever the Left makes up -- and trust me, they're scrambling for something that even SOUNDS valid -- it's bound to be a proxy for "We completely lose the ability to indoctrinate your kids if that happens."

What would school vouchers do?
I have never understood why teachers unions oppose vouchers, as it would be the largest salary increase they could ever get.

Check this link out: http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/pubilspending+reve nue.htm
Find the amount your state spends per pupil. Next, we will do some math.

If you didn't attend a public school and are therefore capable of calculating, do the math to see what privatization could really do for your state. It adds great power to arguments to have facts on your side. For example, in Michigan where I reside, the per pupil spending is $9,072. That means if a teacher could have a private class of just 15 students and collect revenue directly instead of through the bureaucracy, they'd be able to make over $136,000 per year. And that is assuming that they only have 15 kids per class. Isn't that better than the average salary of $20,000 per year and 40 kid classrooms?

Then, leave it to the teachers to determine how they will diversify the education they offer. Say, they band together with music, science, math teachers etc and each pays 10% of their salary to have a building in common. Another 10% could go to learning materials. Congrats! A school with excellent teacher, 15 kids per class and teachers making over $100,000 per year. That's one example, but there are others. Perhaps they would focus solely on math, science, and technology. Perhaps they would focus more intensively on the arts. Perhaps grade school teachers would simply teach alone to keep a small, well known group of children. High School teachers with special skills may open a trade school to teach real life job skills. Others may prefer to focus on pre-college courses.

But the implications of implementing such a system are even broader than that. Are you Catholic? Mormon? Baptist? Athiest? Jewish? Muslim? Why not be allowed to send your child to a school that reflects your values. Parents are already paying for it through taxes, after all. Why should you have to pay for a service you don't use? Furthermore, when the issues of prayer in school come up, or the Evolution/Creation debate, they also have the solution in school choice. Parents could send their children to schools where Evolution is taught, where Creation is taught, where both are taught.

The point is, teachers are professionals who should be allowed to use their full innovation to teach our children. Parents should have the right to choose how their children will be educated. It can be done with the money we are already spending.

Leftists: What's so bad about that?
Conservatives: Write your local congress person and ask them to give teachers a multi-thousand dollar raise, and explain to them how it would work.

Yet for all the liberal rhetoric against vouchers, they have yet to come up with A SINGLE argument showing how public schools are better, or a defining a better option. They cannot admit that public schools are working, because then they couldn't continue to ask for more money to improve them. They cannot support a real solution in vouchers because that would require admitting that the current system is a failure.

Liberals: If vouchers are so bad, what is your solution? I'd love to hear one...


school choice
There are two things wrong with it.

First, it should be available to all parents for any reason. The kids belong to them not the gov't. They are responsible for them, not the gov't.

Second, the door is being left open for the state to interfere with the curriculum and philosophy of private schools who redeem vouchers.

One of the major reasons for public school failure is that they can't teach values in a meaningful way. Secular humanism as a state religion provides a poor means for providing kids with a successful social more. Religious and private schools can and do. A kid with factual knowledge but no ethic is NOT educated.

Worse, our children are being indoctrinated into that unsuccessful social framework in a way hostile to their family and our national religious heritages.

The prime reason liberals don't want school privatization is they won't be able to control what kids learn any more... someone might make educational choices that "offend" them or disagree with them... that certainly seems to be the flavor of lilly's post as well.

inkling_revival
“If we want to discuss history, fine; if we're discussing education in the modern world, what happened 50 years ago is irrelevant.”

Actually it is totally relevant and your comment is most reflective of the “McDonald’s Generation”, i.e., everything is complete, has always been, life began on my birth-date, nothing else matters, so why bother. Once again those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Those individuals from 50 years ago were unionized, indoctrinated in liberalism, feminism and a basic sense of self. Today they are the chief administrators of the Teacher’s Union, Department of Education, and most local school boards. Until that generation passes or is replaced with a more conservative posture, their bent should be less construed with education then perpetration of the status quo, i.e., tenure, pension, secularism and socialism.


School Choice / Over-crowding
It seems to me that a solution for over-crowded classrooms would be school choice. The left is always whining for more money to reduce crowded classrooms.

Wouldn't the incentive of school choice attract many of those students in crowded classrooms to leave the public schools resulting in smaller class sizes?

Isn't this what the teachers' unions want? Wouldn't both sides win with school choice?

If it's "all about the kids," as the teachers' unions claim, they will support school choice. Unfortunately, it's not about the kids. It's clearly all about money and power.

killer
You need a blog, man. I'd love to be able to access your writings at will.

"We do not want America destroyed because educated people have no JOBS!This is the surest path to REVOLUTION......"

The second surest way is, apparently, uneducated people with keyboards.

killer
I didn't notice where it was suggested that every child go to Harvard. I think the point of the article was that poor children shouldn't be stuck in failing state indoctrination centers.

Poor Lilly
As a typical lib. she sees everything wrong and all the bad people are conservatives.After the blacks got their civil rights (thanks to the Republicans and over the screeching voices of the kkk senator Byrd.Al Gores daddy J.W. Fulbright).The blacks wanted to move into the all white neighborhoods.Oh no said the ruling dems.in those locations, we will build you brand new apartments.Thus we have all those tenements in the big cities and we all know how that experiment worked out

Killer
I have never said this on Townhall before, but a few more words may actually help your case.

From what I read, I may actually agree with you, but you are a bit too terse for me to get what you are saying. If you use jargon, please define it.

I know this is the land of the massive, useless cut and paste post, and I never thought I would say someone here said too little, but, honestly, you didn't really make clear what you were saying.

For instance, do you believe full employment is beneficial and non-inflationary? Are you an anti-Keynsian type who detests the feds and the school of mandatory unemployment? If so, I probably agree with at least some of your arguments, but, as you tried to be too terse, I can't tell.

And now I said too little
By "feds" I meant Federal Reserve System, not the federal government as a whole.

The Problem
I just re-read your post and mine and realize your post could also be some LaRouchian variant and be something with which I completely disagree. So, at the riskj of repeating myself too much, please make your point with a few more words, or, if you have to be so brief, choose your words more carefully. Your current post could be anything, as the meaning of what you said is not clear. If I can read it to be anything from vonMises to laRouche, it needs to be cleared up a bit.

Sorry Killer
Just read your posts on another article and see your views are much closer to my own. Sorry for mentioning laRouche in the same breath as you. I generally try to avoid doing that as it starts horrible fights.

Apologies. I think my first impression was correct.

Sorry for all the posts, but after comparing someone to a nutbag like Lyndon I had to issue a mea culpa.

Racism
In some respects, the remedy was worse than the disease. Moynihan in 1960 lamented the condition of blacks in America. They lacked educational opportunity, had higher rates of unemployment, etc. He rightly related it back to problems in the black home. He was appalled that close to 30% of black children were conceived illegitimately and many were abandoned by their fathers.

After 40+ years of liberal social and economic solutions, every measure of black performance as compared to whites is worse. Unemployment is still a problem. Education is still a problem and worse. Illegitimacy approaches 70%. Crime, imprisonment, drug abuse, alcoholism, violence, etc are all worse.

Yet... liberals like lilly want to turn around and blame conservatives for protesting these solutions.

The racial history of our country was a slow healing problem. The residual resentment from the Civil War still very much ingrained in the 1960's southern mind was pervasive. For those who don't like to think in historical context- remember that southern leaders in the 1960's were greatly influenced by their grandfathers who had lived through the Civil War and Reconstruction. They'd been stripped of rights and property. They'd had carpet baggers rob them while authorities turned their heads. They'd seen former slaves installed as puppet rulers during reconstruction as southerners were mocked, reviled, and left to fend for themselves- many times destitute due to the war.

The whole southern way of life (not just slavery or things related to slavery) had been overturned. Soldiers maimed fighting for a losing cause came home to farms pillaged by Union raiders and wives and daughters who'd been raped by the same... sometimes they came home to find everything burned and everyone dead.

There was alot of pain that needed to heal on all sides... not just for blacks. The liberal answer to that slow healing process was to apply acid and rub vigorously. Many southerners saw it as a second Union invasion and reacted defensively.

I'm not dismissing the harm done to blacks at all either through slavery or racism. I am saying that you can't simply judge what someone said or did in 1960 47 years removed without any consideration for what shaped their worldview.

Oldschoolskills
I stand corrected, you obviously remember things that I do not - I graduated in 1958. I attended Public schools mostly in Ypsilanti and never attended one that was segregated at the time that I attended them. My half-heimers must have kicked in because I do remember we briefly lived in Dearborn Michigan and that city was made infamous for its blatant racism - but I was so young then I have no clear memory of what the racial make up of the Nursery school and kindergarten was at that time.

I never meant to imply that there was NO racism in my time - I saw plenty of it but not as a policy enforced by the schools I attended. What I said was not intended to be all inclusive of the state of racial affairs in Michigan at that time. I am aware of many problems in around where I lived that were racially motived reprehensible acts. I never meant to imply that things were perfect for Black people then and I do apologize for my historical inaccuracy -- it was unintentional.

Bottom line
The most compelling reason to have school choice: Because the free market competition always results in a better product.

The only valid reason to be anti school choice is that you want to continue to control the curriculum (and keep the political mindbending in there). Nuts to that.

SunThe1 is correct...
...that free market competition results in a better product.

I can really understand why so many conservatives like the idea of school choice and vouchers. As a liberal with a fiscally conservative bent, I definitely see the point.

However, we're missing a major issue, here. The clients of the public school system ***do not directly pay for services***. This complicates things in a major way! There is so much more to be said, it's almost silly to start. But, please, educate yourselves about the specifics of vouchers, and about state and federal funding systems for schools before simply assuming the obvious but, unfortunately, terribly inaccurate premise.

In our state, charter schools do not have to administer the state test or otherwise be seriously accountable for student progress.

As a teacher, I only wish it were as simple as vouchers. The fact is, parents have been accustomed to using "The National Babysitting Service" for some time. It will take quite a bit of reeducation and reform to fix the problems we've created.

Don't worry, though: it's not completely lost. State testing, while being used poorly, has gone a long way toward making teachers more aware of their students' progress on core curricular objectives.

And there are still plenty of people like me who *love* what they do for a living and do it well.

Often the simpler solutions are the more elegant. In this case, though, the simple and apparently obvious answer is neither.

Keep thinking, says the teacher!
Martha

Martha
Wow-

You mean charter schools are not accountable to our gov't for student progress? They are only accountable to the parents. For shame!


Fuzzy...
...unfortunately, parents, **on average**, can be wowed without a great deal of evidence. On the micro level, you're correct. Good consumers can hold a school to account. On the macro level, your theory falls apart. The charter schools in our district are not doing a very impressive job.

And you still haven't considered my main point: There is not serious competition for quality services because the funds are capped. Charter and private schools begin to fall apart as soon as they have to purchase services for students with special needs. There simply is not a *real* sustainable market for quality education except among the very wealthy.

You're not looking at the long-term economics, here. Where is all this money going to come from?

Martha

A failing system
Cleveland spends upwards of $12, 000 - $15, 000 per student, per school year (and every election, or according to the teacher unions, demand they need more and more money) ... and the schools are failing, hence, the students are failing or dropping out. The solution is not throwing more and more taxpayers money at the problem. I'm not even certain there IS a solution ... except to close public schools, hand out vouchers to everyone with a child and let them choose where they want their child to actually learn. Competition is a very strong catalyst to improvement.

The only definition to the word "choice" liberals (dems) know is the choice to terminate a pregnancy or the choice to marry whatever gender they please. Education is a monster monopoly the left has created and will never allow it to be taken from them. The government does not belong in the schools ... and I dare say, neither do unions.

I sent my children to private Catholic grade school (50% of their classes were black, BTW). My kids moved onto public middle and high school (Try as I might, and living in a moderately high property tax area where I was paying for public schools we weren't using, we could not afford the increase in tuition to continue them in private school for high school). Thankfully, our local public schools were some of the better in the state. Upon meeting with their teachers at both school levels I was ALWAYS told that they, the teachers, wished their classrooms were filled with kids like mine. Why? Because they had a strong work ethic and discipline. I informed each teacher the girls had started out in Catholic school. The teachers (dared) to agree it was a good foundation ... but also insisted I shouldn't discount parental involvement ... That parents just seem to blindly send their kids off every morning expecting the burden of educating their kids rests fully on the shoulders of the teachers. It does not.

When our Catholic grade school was closing I asked the teachers there if they were looking to the public schools for new jobs. Time and again I was told "No", because the public schools could not afford them (Although the Catholic school salary was small, in comparison to public school teachers, they had continued in their educations and degrees, and with their years of experience would require a bigger salary.) My very liberal democrat Aunt who taught advanced math classes in high school even insisted public schools should be closed.

My two daughters worked hard and blasted the anti-female statistical charts re: girls and math and science classes. They both were the top of their classes. One has since graduated from college with a nursing degree, and continues to add to her degrees while working and raising a baby. The other daughter is finishing her freshman year in an honors college where she is double majoring in chemistry and biology, with a minor in math (to which the whole of the college math department is beside themselves in trying to persuade her to major in math ...) as she is in pre-med. This year she has made the college president's list, the honors dean's list, with recognitions and awards from the college honors math and chemistry departments. As a Freshman she is in Calculus III and is the youngest in the class. Her professor looks to her for assistance in problem solving, and on more than one occasion she has been chased down in the corridor by professors for help. Even in her honors English Lit class, a subject she isn't particularly fond of, she has blown her professor off her feet with her sound and intelligent conservative views.

To be spending 10's of thousands per student in public school (tuition at some smaller colleges) and to not be seeing positive student outcomes is not only asinine and inept ... but corrupt.

Mr. Blackwell, as an Ohioan I voted for you for Governor in the last election. I was heartsick when you did not win. Please, Sir, run again?!

HI Martha
I propose the abolition of the public school system. This is my long-term solution. All the problems I have with public schooling, including funding of alternatives, goes away. Until that day comes, I am glad the public school system has thoughtful people like you involved in them.

I do not for a moment blame all public educators or administrators for the ills of the system. I blame the political control exercised on them in return for funding. I am reminded of the global warming anti-debate. No alternative science or theory allowed. Are public schools any different?

What authority do you have to satisfy the portion of the public that is dissatisfied? Little. You do the best you can in your role. You are kind to the children and care as best as you can for their educational needs. I applaud that.

Parents have little authority there either. Until very recently, all alternatives were either cost prohibitive or illegal. Change is slowly coming. At some point, parents won't have to pay for both public schools and their alternative school of choice simultaneously.


wishful thinking
Conservatives who honor Martin Luther King are ridiculous. If they truly want to understand their own ideology, they should view King and the civil rights movement as a left-wing eruption of disorder into American society. The court decisions and legislation that are part of that era were liberal to the core.

As for the silly comments to the effect that Republicans were supporters of civil rights, while Democrats were not, here's the right way to look at this: (1) The southern Democrats were hardly liberals; most of them were somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun on racial issues, and always had been--they were not the liberal Democrats conservatives love to hate; (2) the Republicans who supported civil rights were moderate to liberal Republicans, not conservatives. Remember that Barry Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and opposed the various federal court decisions on desegregation.

My point is that the fundamental principles of conservatism are antithetical to the liberal principles behind the very concept of civil rights. You guys now play suck-up and are painfully trying to be PC on racial issues. It's pathetic!

Hi, Fuzzy!
Thanks for the kind words!

I understand, better than it might seem, why people want to do away with the public school system. My problem lies with the lack of awareness of the factors contributing to its demise.

Indeed, when you get something for free, you tend to devalue it. That is why I referred to public education as the national babysitting service. People become used to it as such and actually feel entitled. I often hear parents (not of my students) complain about schools having professional days and vacations and such and..."How am I supposed to go to work?"

I just smile. It's better than the alternative. :)

The issue that I would like to see conservatives face is the fact that education's cost significantly increased with Public Law 94-142 in 1975. Subsequent continued measures to support students with special needs continued to add to the cost of education -- astonomically. Too often, people fail to realize that the money they are paying now for education used to be paid to "the institutions."

Twenty-one-year-old students in wheelchairs, needing diaper changes and feeding tube management, are now educated in our public schools. (They are usually in "center" schools where you don't see them when you drop off your kids at the local school, but you neverless pay for their care.) Add to that the skyrocketing number of kids with ADHD, ODD, Autism Spectrum Disorder, and other rising diagnostic categories, along with extensive legal costs, and, yes, the cost of education is increasing. It's amazing that it's as cheap as it is.

Now, I'm a special ed. teacher, and I actually teach reading, math, science, and social studies. The last thing I want is for people to get angry at my kids for taking up such a big piece of the pie. But I think the truth is important. We have to recognize that in America we teach *everyone*. This is not the case everywhere!

Here's another issue that is often ignored:
You mention paying for public and private simultaneously. I would submit that you pay for a *much* smaller portion of public education than you would if you had to pay for the actual cost, were your child accessing it. We spread out the cost of public ed. across the population: grandparents, people who've never had kids, people who have kids, but haven't used the public system -- everyone pays a portion. I call that crime prevention. It needs to be improved, but who's to say what our country would look like without it?

I'm just saying that it's not that simple. If everyone payed for their own children, as they were using the system, they wouldn't want to pay for a share of the more expensive kids. That would become a severe social problem.

I realize that there are valid arguments on both sides, but I don't think either side is really listening to the educators. My biggest concern is that we will end up on the other side of this voucher thing with something like what we have in the US Virgin Islands: *horrific* public schools, accomplishing nothing with the remainder from those who have fled the system, and costly, but less than optimum private schools, except for the very wealthy. I really don't think it will look good at all for the middle class.

The problem I have with vouchers is that they don't really have anything to do with a free market system. They are just one more example of the delusion that you can have a free lunch.

Quality education is damn expensive. Unfortunately, we rarely see far enough ahead to truly recognize it's value.

Wow. Apparently, I feel strongly about this. My finger flew!

All the best!
Martha

p.s. Where I live, most people are very pleased with the quality of the educational system (for good reason). I admit a certain unfamiliarity with areas like Columbus, OH, where the decline seems to be almost irreversible.


Gestell...
The Declaration of Conservatism was adopted by the Board of Directors of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies in its meeting on August 9, 1998 in Dallas, Texas. It incorporates the fundamental principles and reason for being for the National Federation or Republican Assemblies and its state chapters.

http://www.al-ra.org/declaration_of_conservative_prin.htm

One of their guiding principles is as follows:

"The delegated role of our federal government is to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Since a civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places.

Can you please explain the basis behind your conclusion?

"My point is that the fundamental principles of conservatism are antithetical to the liberal principles behind the very concept of civil rights."

1. How are the fundamental principles of conservatism "antithetical to the liberal principles behind the very concept of civil rights.”?
2. How are civil rights a liberal principle?

A 10yr plan to fix K-12 education
Neither side has it right, unfortunately, on fixing our K-12 education system.

The suggestions from both sides are minor - involving patchwork to a system that is failing miserably!

Republicans: local control (state level), more money, some accountability .. blah, blah

Democrats: Federal control, more money .. blah, blah

Of the two 'patchwork' solutions, I happen to favor (slightly) the Republican version - but c'mon .. don't any of these politicians get the fact that as a country, we erred grossly when we put K-12 education into the hands of the Govt? Would it matter significantly if it was the State Govt instead of the Federal Govt?

How long will we taxpayers accept band-aids on a gushing wound?

What we need is a 10yr phased privatization of K-12 education.

PHASE1 (1st five yrs)
* school choice - vouchers that are redeemable at any accredited private or public school for every eligible kid
* tax deductibility of tuition to any accredited private school

PHASE2 (next five yrs)
* school choice - vouchers ONLY for the poor, redeemable at accredited private and public schools
* tax relief for everyone else
* end tax deductibility of tuition

PHASE3 (the future)
* no more public schools
* vouchers ONLY for the poor, redeemable at accredited private schools (now a flourishing, self-sustaining part of the economy)

What would the effect be on all the players: teachers, administrators, students and parents?

Teachers & administrators: more pay for competence
Students & parents: higher quality, more choice, lower cost

Education & economics
The conventional wisdom is that K-12 Public Education in America is a failure. However, some people point to the stunted nature of Private Education as proof that privatization is not the answer.

Often cited is the fact that there is a long 'waiting list at the expensive public schools'. Does this make sense? Can we apply Econ101 and come up with an explanation?

Remember: economics deals with the allocation of scarce resources.

If you think about it, the fact that there are waiting lists for the good pvt schools actually demonstrates the impact of 'free' public education on the market for Private Education.

The analogy that comes to mind is that of the Private Enterprise (black market) shops in the former Soviet Union.

While the grocery stores in the Soviet Paradise had bare shelves, people would line up for hours for a chance to get their hands on the scarce luxuries (e.g. meat) at the Pvt stores.

Except for the fact that Pvt schools in the US are not illegal, the scarcity of good education as a commodity is the result of Govt control of this sector.

BTW, if the NEA had its way, don't you think that Private schools would be illegal! If that sounds absurd, stick around for a decade or two ..

Imagine ..
.. A presidential candidate whose platform for education included the following:

A) Making tuition to accredited Private Schools tax deductible

AND / OR

B) Providing vouchers to families with school age kids - vouchers that could be used at accredited public AND private schools

Such a candidate would get the interest of parents (read: voters) from both sides of the political spectrum.

Needless to say, such a candidate would not appeal to most union-istas - except for those who also happened to be parents who put their kids' education ahead of the political loyalties.

What would the above proposals achieve?

They would:

* constitute a relatively minor change in our existing system - and give us a chance to see if this reforms the system
* revive private education - currently struggling, with some notable exceptions
* increase competition for teachers - raising salaries for good teachers
* set the country on a path towards free-enterprise-education; IMO this should've been our approach from day one!

Please take a moment and jot down your responses to the following questions:

1) Would you vote for such a candidate regardless of the candidate's party affiliation?

2) Are there any disadvantages to either of the two proposals?

3) Can you name any candidate with the huevos to take on the status-quo in education?

4) Can we accept the status-quo?

School Vouchers
I support school vouchers. For what I have seen and heard from students that I personally mentor and what is being added to the public school curriculum - for example: alternative lifestyles, evolution, supporting abortion, and anti-christian beliefs, just to mention a few, I would appreciate the opportunity to put my child in a school that reflect my values and not subject my child to those teachings.

What is even more interesting is, when it comes to terminating a pregnancy, they say "a woman should have a choice", but when it comes to the education of my child I should not have a choice? Hum, go figure.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.